2011 Arbitration Case Law | Circuit Courts


Today, as part of our 2011 Year-End Highlights, we present noteworthy arbitration opinions from the Circuit Courts (for Fifth Circuit decisions, click here).

  • The Ninth Circuit refused to compel arbitration because arbitration clause was not broad enough to cover dispute. In Cape Flattery Limited v. Titan Maritime, LLC, No. 09-15682 (9th Cir. July 26, 2011) Cape Flattery, a shipowner had contracted with Titan, a salvage company, to remove a stranded vessel from a reef. Read more here.
  • The eleventh Circuit ruled that the plaintiff’s act of amending its complaint may allow a defendant to resurrect its previously-waived right to arbitrate. In Krinsk v. Suntrust Banks, Inc., No. 10-11912 (11th Cir. Sept. 7, 2011) the defendant had participated in the case for nine months without enforcing its right to arbitrate the class action claims. Read more here.
  • The Second Circuit held that an issuer who purchases auction-facilitating services for its auction rate securities from a broker-dealer is a “customer” of that broker-dealer within the meaning of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Rule 12200. Read more here.
  • The Ninth Circuit ruled that pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clause is invalid under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. In Kolev v. Euromotors West/The Auto Gallery, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19254 (9th Cir. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011) a pre-owned car Diana Kolev (“Kolev”) purchased developed serious mechanical problems during the warranty period and the dealership refused to honor her warranty claims. Kolev sued for breach of warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”), 15 U.S.C. Section 2301 et seq., breach of contract, and unconscionability. Read more here.

 

Technorati Tags:

arbitrationADRlaw

error: ADR Times content is protected!