Tag: Litigation

Sixth Circuit Deals Blow to OSHA’s Proposed Expedited Briefing Schedule, Says it Will Keep ETS Case

In what is getting to be habit in the OSHA ETS litigation with courts issuing orders late Friday afternoons, the Sixth Circuit on December 3, 2021 tersely denied a petition to transfer the case back to the Fifth Circuit.  In the same order, the Sixth Circuit also denied, without explanation, the union petitioners’ bid to transfer the case to the D.C. Circuit where there is pending litigation of the OSHA Healthcare ETS issued in June 2020.

The order perfunctorily addressed several pending motions on the docket, including OSHA’s motion for an expedited briefing schedule, which would have set the close of briefing on the merits for December 29, 2021 with oral argument held as soon as practicable thereafter.  In denying the motion, the Sixth Circuit stated little more than it was reserving judgment on setting a merits briefing schedule.  Obviously, there are a tremendous number of parties with varied interests and a multitude of legal arguments both statutory and Constitutional, which the court clearly recognizes are at play and likely require a schedule that is not rushed.

The next big issue for the court to tackle will be OSHA’s motion to dissolve the stay with the close of briefing just a week away on December 10, 2021.  Whether the court will dole out more good news for employers, states, and other challengers to the ETS for the holiday season is anybody’s guess, but a decision before the holidays seems imminent.

Article By Melanie L. Paul of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more coronavirus legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.
Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021

Counsel Fee Award When Contesting A Will

In general, the party tasked with defending a decedent’s Will during a Will contest, which is typically the executor, is entitled to the reimbursement of counsel fees that they incur in defending the Will on behalf of the Estate. At times, however, a party who has filed an action to contest a Last Will and Testament may also be entitled to an award of counsel fees provided there was a reasonable and legitimate basis to contest the decedent’s Last Will and Testament. In a recent appellate division case, the court affirmed an award of counsel fees to the contestant of a decedent’s Will for these very reasons.

In this matter, the defendant executor had been awarded counsel fees by the court, as the defendant was responsible for defending the decedent’s Last Will and Testament against the challenges levied by the plaintiff. In addition, the trial court also awarded counsel fees to the plaintiff, as it found that plaintiff’s challenge to the decedent’s Will was made in good faith and was reasonable. Moreover, the court found that plaintiff’s fees for which it sought reimbursement were fair and reasonable. In response, the defendant argued that the award of counsel fees was contrary to the applicable New Jersey court rules, and therefore, objected to the award. The appellate division reviewed the applicable rule of professional conduct, RPC 1.5(a), and concluded that the plaintiff had reasonable cause to contest the validity of the decedent’s Will, and moreover, that the fees the plaintiff sought were reasonable. As such, the appellate division concluded that the trial court correctly awarded counsel fees to the contestant of the decedent’s Will.

This appellate division decision reaffirmed a well-accepted standard as to an award of counsel fees in the context of probate litigation. When you are either taxed with defending a Last Will and Testament or intending to contest a Last Will and Testament, this factor should be considered when deciding whether settlement makes sense. Since there is no guarantee to either side that the counsel fees will be awarded, it is an issue that should be considered in the context of any settlement discussions before trial.

COPYRIGHT © 2021, STARK & STARK
Article by Paul W. Norris with Stark & Stark.
For more articles on estates and trusts, visit the NLR Family, Estates & Trusts section.

More Circuits Added to the OSHA ETS Lottery

Lawsuits challenging the COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing (the “ETS”) issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) were filed in three additional U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals on Wednesday, November 10, 2021. Labor unions filed lawsuits in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits. As a result, there are now ETS-related lawsuits pending in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts.

According to federal rules, the legal challenges to the OSHA ETS will be consolidated and heard by a single U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will conduct a lottery, expected on November 16, to select which U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the consolidated litigation. The court to hear the litigation will be drawn “from a drum containing an entry for each circuit wherein a constituent petition for review is pending.” Each court only gets one entry, despite the number of petitions pending before each court. Until the Judicial Panel selects the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the litigation via the lottery, all the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals can proceed with rulings, as the Fifth Circuit did this past weekend.

The labor unions’ move may be a move reflective of an intent by some to increase the odds that the OSHA ETS is upheld. The First, Second, and Fourth circuits all have a majority of Democratic-appointed judges. But it is difficult to predict the future of the OSHA ETS as the panel of judges to hear the case is also selected randomly.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California
For more updates on COVID-19, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

Litigation Minute: Obtaining Information After the Close of Discovery

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IN A MINUTE OR LESS

Imagine this scenario: you just learned that the opposing party is using the same witness or expert from your case in some related litigation. You have good reason to suspect that the testimony in that other case directly relates to the very facts in your case. Because of the prior commercial relationships between the parties, the witness or expert likely made some admissions that would be very helpful to your case. But the discovery cutoff in your case has long past, and you are preparing for trial. What do you do?

Discovery may close, but litigation goes on. Sometimes you become aware of information that is relevant to your case after the close of discovery. This could be information that did not previously exist or information that you only learned about after the discovery deadline had passed. In a minute or less, here are some considerations you should keep in mind for obtaining information after the close of discovery.

Check your local rules

First and foremost, always consult your local rules, as jurisdictions may vary in their standards for late discovery and whether a local duty to supplement is imposed. For example, the Northern District of Illinois temporarily implemented a Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Program, which required parties to respond to a series of standard discovery requests before partaking in any other discovery. Witness statements are one of the specific categories of documents that parties must disclose. Thus, some jurisdictions may provide additional mechanisms and authority to rely upon in order to obtain the sought transcripts.

Duty to supplement

If the information you are seeking is responsive to timely-served requests, seek opposing counsel’s compliance under the duty to supplement imposed by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Under Rule 26(e), parties that have made prior disclosures or responded to a discovery request with a disclosure or response are generally under a duty to supplement or correct the provided information. The duty to supplement extends to expert witnesses whose report must be disclosed pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B). An expert’s duty to supplement includes information within the report, as well as information provided during the expert’s deposition.

The duty to supplement survives past the discovery cutoff. It is important to know that the duty to supplement may extend far past the deadline to complete discovery. Even if the discovery deadline has come and gone, parties must nonetheless supplement and/or correct prior disclosures or responses in a timely manner upon learning that the prior disclosure was incomplete or incorrect in some material respect and the additional and/or corrective information has not been made known to the other party. Note some courts and/or scheduling orders set a separate supplemental discovery deadline.

Meet and confer

Once you have identified previous discovery requests that would cover this material, you can approach opposing counsel. An effort to obtain the information without the court’s action is a prerequisite to a Motion to Compel under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and most local rules. Under Rule 37(a)(1), parties cannot move for an order compelling discovery until the movant has in good faith conferred, or attempted to confer, with the party resisting discovery and included a certification of those efforts. Additionally, you can move for appropriate sanctions if the resisting party fails to make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a).

Good cause requirement for extending discovery

If the information you seek is not responsive to timely-served requests, you may want to move to extend the discovery deadline to serve additional requests. To do so, you must demonstrate “good cause” warranting the extension. Courts generally focus their inquiry on the movant’s diligence and/or excusable neglect. Some courts find excusable neglect by balancing the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the potential impact of the delay on the proceedings, the movant’s reason for the delay, and whether the movant acted in good faith. So, it will be important to show that the information is critical to your case and explain why it was not requested earlier.

Can you serve requests for admission?

In some jurisdictions, requests for admission are not considered discovery devices that are subject to the fact discovery cutoff. If you are in one of these jurisdictions, consider whether the information you seek can be established by use of this mechanism.

The key takeaways here are: (1) draft your initial discovery requests in a way that is broad enough to capture later developments, like testimony; (2) know your local rules; and (3) act quickly and decisively to make sure your client is not prejudiced.

This article was written by Jeffrey T. Kucera, Carly S. Everhardt and Claudia Velasquez of K&L Gates law firm. For more articles about discovery, please visit here.

It’s Time to Clarify When Cross-Appeals Are Necessary

Much has been said on this blog about when one should cross-appeal, given the Law Court’s jurisprudence on the topic.  I most recently addressed the issue here.  As I noted then, there is some tension between the text of the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that “[i]f the appellee seeks any change in the judgment that is on appeal, the appellee must file a cross-appeal to preserve that issue,” M.R. App. P. 2C(a)(1), and the Court’s most recent rulings (in Jones v. Secretary of State and Reed v. Secretary of State) regarding the necessity of cross-appealing to preserve an alternative argument for affirmance.  Because of the importance of this issue, my colleague Nolan Reichl and I recently published an article in the Maine Bar Journal (at page 10) addressing the topic.

As we wrote there,

Recent decisions by the Law Court have raised questions concerning whether a litigant must file a notice of cross-appeal merely to argue a judgment should be affirmed based on grounds alternative to those adopted by the trial court. Maine Rule of Appellate Procedure 2C, Law Court precedent, and analogous federal practice all confirm that an appellee urging affirmance of a judgment on alternative grounds need not file a notice of cross-appeal so long as that litigant does not seek a substantive alteration in the terms of the judgment.

We also note that,

as the law now stands, it is less than clear what the cross-appeal rule is. Rule 2C and [the Law Court’s decision in Argereow v. Weisberg] say one thing, while Reed and Jones say another.

Accordingly, we argue that the cross-appeal rule applied in Reed and Jones “should be overruled expressly” and that the “Law Court should take the next available opportunity to clarify its cross-appeal jurisprudence and reaffirm the plain terms of Rule 2C.”

Agree or disagree, we hope that the article furthers the discussion on this important topic.

©2021 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.
For more articles like this, visit the NLR Litigation section.

GovCon Fraud Grounded: Whistleblower Receives Reward for Reporting Aviation Equipment Government Contracting Fraud

The United States Department of Justice settled a case against aviation equipment defense contractor Airbus Defense and Space Inc. (ADSI) for charging improper fees on government contracts. Under the terms of the settlement, the defense contractor paid $1,043,475 to resolve False Claims Act allegations. A former employee of the government contractor reported these improper fees and will receive $157,220 of the government’s recovery.

According to the allegations, the contractor included an unapproved cost rate on contracts, did not accurately disclose fees, and worked out a storage overbilling scheme with a third-party contractor, causing the government to pay more for storage than necessary. To disguise an additional and sometimes undisclosed indirect cost rate, the contractor added what they called an “Orlando Factor” to various price proposals for 62 contracts. Indirect cost rates are a complex portion of government contracting arrangements whereby a contractor attempts to obtain reimbursement for their company’s operational costs. From 2016-2017, this aviation equipment contractor’s “Orlando Factor” was applied in addition to their indirect cost rate approved by the federal agencies with which they were contracting.

The allegations further describe additional fees the contractor tacked onto equipment acquisitions in violation of federal acquisition regulations. Moreover, the contractor listed an unverified affiliate fee on its proposals. Finally, the contractor inflated storage costs by a factor of 10, resulting in General Dynamics passing on $80,000 in storage fees to the U.S. Navy instead of $8,000 in fees.

Defense contracting fraud harms taxpayers; inflating the cost of obtaining equipment can make defense budgets spiral out of control. This particular contractor seems to have found multiple ways to hide costs and pad proposals so as to turn a profit above and beyond their cost of doing business.

A former employee of ASDI reported these fraudulent practices and is being rewarded for speaking up, including receiving funds to pay for their expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The Department of Justice needs whistleblowers to report government contracts fraud. Last year, only 35 defense fraud cases were filed by whistleblowers. With $720 billion spent, more fraud is out there.

© 2021 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP
For more articles on Government Contracts, visit the NLR

Government Contracts, Maritime & Military Law type of law section.

A Flurry of CFTC Actions Shock the Cryptocurrency Industry

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sent shockwaves across the cryptocurrency industry when it issued a $1.25 million settlement order with Kraken, one of the industry’s largest market participants. The next day, the CFTC announced that it had charged each of 14 entities for offering cryptocurrency derivatives and margin trading without registering as a futures commission merchant (FCM). While the CFTC has issued regulatory guidance in the past and engaged in some regulatory enforcement activities, it has now established itself as a key regulator of the industry along with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury). Market participants should be aware that the CFTC will continue to take a more active role in regulation and enforcement of commodities and derivatives transactions moving forward.

The CFTC alleged that each of the defendants were acting as an unregistered FCM. Under Section 1a(28)(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the Act), 7 U.S.C. § 1(a)(28)(A), an FCM is any “individual, association, partnership, or trust that is engaged in soliciting or accepting orders for the purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery; a security futures product; a swap . . . any commodity option authorized under section 6c of this title; or any leverage transaction authorized under section 23 of this title.” In order to be considered an FCM, that entity must also “accept[] money, securities, or property (or extends credit in lieu thereof) to margin, guarantee, or secure any trades or contracts that result or may result therefrom.” (See: 7 U.S.C. § 1(a)(28)(A)(II).) 7 U.S.C. § 6d(1), requires FCMs to be registered with the CFTC.

IN DEPTH

THE KRAKEN SETTLEMENT

On September 28, 2021, the CFTC issued an order, filing and settling charges against respondent Payward Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Kraken for offering margined retail commodity transactions in cryptocurrency—including Bitcoin—and failing to register as an FCM. Kraken is required to pay a $1.25 million civil monetary penalty and to cease and desist from further violations of the Act. The CFTC stated that, “This action is part of the CFTC’s broader effort to protect U.S. customers.”

The CFTC’s order finds that from approximately June 2020 to July 2021, Kraken violated Section 4(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6(a)(2018) by offering to enter into, entering into, executing and/or confirming the execution of off-exchange retail commodity transactions with US customers who were not eligible contract participants or eligible commercial entities. The CFTC also found that Kraken operated as an unregistered FCM in violation of Section 4d(a)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6d(a)(1) (2018). According to the order, Kraken served as the sole margin provider and maintained physical and/or constructive custody of all assets purchased using margins for the duration of a customer’s open margined position.

Margined transactions worked as follows: The customer opened an individual account at Kraken and deposited cryptocurrency or fiat currency into the account. The customer then initiated a trade by selecting (1) the trading pair they wished to trade, (2) a purchase or sale transaction and (3) a margin option. All trades were placed on Kraken’s central limit order book and executed individually for each customer. If a customer purchased an asset using margin, Kraken supplied the cryptocurrency or national currency to pay the seller for the asset. If a customer sold an asset using margin, Kraken supplied the cryptocurrency or national currency due to the buyer. Trading on margin allowed the customer to establish a position but also created an obligation for the customer to repay Kraken at the time the margined position was closed. The customer’s position remained open until they submitted a closing trade, they repaid the margin or Kraken initiated a forced liquidation based on the occurrence of certain triggering events, including limitations on the duration of an open margin position and pre-set margin thresholds. Kraken required customers to exit their positions and repay the assets received to trade on margin within 28 days, however, customers could not transfer assets away from Kraken until satisfying their repayment obligation. If repayment was not made within 28 days, Kraken could unilaterally force the margin position to be liquidated or could also initiate a forced liquidation if the value of the collateral dipped below a certain threshold percentage of the total outstanding margin. As a result, actual delivery of the purchased assets failed to occur.

The CFTC asserted that these transactions were unlawful because they were required to take place on a designated contract market. Additionally, by soliciting and accepting orders for, and entering into, retail commodity transactions with customers and accepting money or property (or extending credit in lieu thereof) to margin these transactions, Kraken was operating as an unregistered FCM.

Coinciding with the release of the enforcement action against Kraken, CFTC Commissioner Dawn D. Sump issued a “concurring statement.” In it, she appeared to be calling upon the CFTC to adopt more specific rules governing the products that are the subject of the enforcement action. Commissioner Sump seemed to indicate that it would be helpful to cryptocurrency market participants if the CFTC clarified its position on the applicability of the Act, as well as registration requirements. The CFTC will likely issue guidance or rules to clarify its position on which cryptocurrency-related products trigger registration requirements.

CFTC CHARGES 14 CRYPTOCURRENCY ENTITIES

On September 29, 2021, the CFTC issued a press release and 14 complaints against cryptocurrency trading platforms. The CFTC is seeking a sanction “directing [the cryptocurrency platforms] to cease and desist from violating the provisions of the Act set forth herein.” Each of the platforms have 20 days to respond.

All of the complaints are somewhat similar in that the CFTC alleges that each of the cryptocurrency platforms “from at least May 2021 and through the present” have offered services to the public “including soliciting or accepting orders for binary options that are based off the value of a variety of assets including commodities such as foreign currencies and cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin, and accepting and holding customer money in connection with those purchases of binary options.”

The CFTC has taken the position that “binary options that are based on the price of an underlying commodity like forex or cryptocurrency are swaps and commodity options as used in the definition of an FCM.” (The CFTC has previously taken the position that Bitcoin and Ethereum constitute “commodities,” doing so in public statements and enforcement actions.) In a prominent enforcement action previously filed by the CFTC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the court held that “virtual currency may be regulated by the CFTC as a commodity” and that it “falls well-within the common definition of ‘commodity’ as well as the CEA’s definition of commodities.” (See: CFTC v. McDonnell, et al., 287 F. Supp. 3d 213, 228 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2018); CFTC v. McDonnell, et al., No. 18-cv-461, ECF No. 172 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2018).) In the action the CFTC filed against BitMEX in October of 2020, it alleged that “digital assets, such as bitcoin, ether, and litecoin are ‘commodities’ as defined under Section 1a(9) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9). (See: CFTC v. HDR Global Trading Limited, et al., No. 20-cv-8132, ECF 1, ¶ 23 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2020).)

The CFTC has previously taken the position that Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin are considered commodities. However, in these recently filed complaints, the CFTC did not appear to limit the cryptocurrencies that would be considered “commodities” to just Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin. Instead, the CFTC broadly referred to “commodities such as foreign currencies and cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin.” It remains to be seen which of the hundreds of cryptocurrencies on the market will be considered “commodities,” but it appears that the CFTC is not limiting its jurisdiction to just three. It is also an open question as to whether there are certain cryptocurrencies or cryptocurrency referencing financial products that the SEC and CFTC will determine are subject to the overlapping jurisdiction of both regulators, similar to mixed swaps under the derivatives rules.

The CFTC also singled out two of these cryptocurrency platforms, alleging that they issued false statements to the effect that it “is a registered FCM and RFED with the CFTC and member of the NFA.” The CFTC noted that neither of these entities were ever registered with the National Futures Association (NFA) and one of the NFA ID numbers listed “identifies an individual who was once registered with the CFTC but has been deceased since 2009.”

WHAT’S NEXT

While the SEC, Treasury and DOJ are often considered the most prominent federal regulators in the cryptocurrency space, this recent sweep by the CFTC is not the first time it has flexed its muscles. The CFTC went to trial and won in 2018, accusing an individual of operating a boiler room. In October 2020, the CFTC filed a case against popular cryptocurrency exchange BitMEX for failing to register as an FCM, among other counts. However, unlike those one-off enforcement actions, the recent actions targeting multiple market participants within two days is a big step forward for the CFTC. Cryptocurrency derivative trading has been rising in popularity over the last few years and it is unsurprising that the CFTC is taking a more active enforcement role.

It is expected that regulatory activity within the cryptocurrency space will increase from all US regulators, including the CFTC, SEC, Treasury and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, especially as cryptocurrency products are increasingly classified as financial products subject to regulation. While the CFTC and other regulators have issued some regulatory guidance, regulators appear to be taking a “regulatory guidance by enforcement action” strategy. Market participants will need to thoughtfully consider all relevant regulatory regimes in order to determine what compliance activities are necessary. As we describe, multiple classifications are possible.

© 2021 McDermott Will & Emery
For more on cryptocurrency litigation, visit the NLR Cybersecurity, Media & FCC section.

Lawsuits Allege Fudged Fudge

 

hot fudge sundae misleadingly described as fudge dairy fat, are falsely and misleadingly described as “fudge.” (See Reinitz v. Kellogg Sales Company, Bartosiake v. Bimbo Bakeries

Three class-action lawsuits filed in district courts in Illinois allege that products containing vegetable oils, and not dairy fat, are falsely and misleadingly described as “fudge.” (See Reinitz v. Kellogg Sales Company, Bartosiake v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., and Lederman v. The Hershey Company).  The lawsuits, which are all filed by Sheehan & Associates, P.C. and are substantively identical, have targeted Kellogg Sales Company’s “Frosted Chocolate Fudge,” Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.’s “Chocolate Fudge Iced Cake,” and the Hershey Company’s “Hot Fudge” respectively.

The lawsuits allege that fudge is a candy made from the mixing of sugar, butter, and milk, and that the replacement of dairy fats (butter and/or milk) with vegetable oils in each of the three products at issue constitutes deceptive advertising.  In support of these claims, Plaintiff cites a hodgepodge of sources including three recipes from around the turn of the 20th century, a Wikipedia entry, Molly Mills, who is apparently “one of today’s leading authorities on fudge,” and a 1982 Bulletin from the International Dairy Federation.

Plaintiffs have not, however, provided any extrinsic evidence of consumer deception (e.g., market studies), and such information will almost certainly have to be produced for such a case to ultimately succeed. We have previously reported on several other class actions which allege that the replacement of dairy fat with vegetable oil is misleading to consumers (see here and here), and we will continue to monitor and report on the outcomes of these cases.

© 2021 Keller and Heckman LLP

Article by the Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman

See links for more articles on Biotech, Food, Drug law, and Consumer Protection law 

Lessons From Above: SCOTUS Declines to Review a Class Arbitrability Case (the Issue Had Been Delegated to an Arbitrator)

In its restraint, SCOTUS has shown us the mischief that arbitrators may do if parties are lax in setting boundaries in their agreement to arbitrate.  By declining to grant certiorari regarding the Second Circuit’s most recent decision in Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34205 (2d Cir. Nov. 18, 2019), cert. den., No. 19-1382, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 4133 (Oct. 5, 2020), SCOTUS reminds us of the significance of the doctrine of judicial deference to the authorized decisions of an arbitrator.

In Jock, the ultimate issue was formidable — class arbitrability.  And the subsidiary issues were and are daunting. For example,

(1) parties to an arbitration agreement can delegate the class arbitrability issue (is class arbitration permitted?) to an arbitrator in the first instance, but would that delegation bind non-appearing putative class members, who are of course not parties to the operative arbitration agreement?

(2) who decides that delegation issue?

(3) would an arbitrator’s determination that class arbitration is permitted bind (a) non-appearing putative class members or (b) an unwilling respondent vis-à-vis those non-appearing putative class members?

The Second Circuit held that an arbitrator had acted within her authority in “purporting to bind the absent class members to class procedures,” 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34205 at *14, and that that determination therefore would stand “regardless of whether [it] is, as the District Court believes, ‘wrong as a matter of law.’”  Id.  Indeed, the Second Circuit had framed its inquiry as “whether the arbitrator had the power, based on the parties’ submissions or the arbitration agreement, to reach a certain issue” and “not whether the arbitrator correctly decided that issue.”  Id. at *8-*9, citing Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 569 (2013).

Thus, the Court of Appeals did not review the merits of the arbitrator’s Class Determination Award (“CDA”), but rather defended it from scrutiny on the merits.  Instead, the Second Circuit focused on the delegation question — did the parties clearly and unmistakably delegate the class arbitrability issue to the arbitrator for determination in the first instance?

The first lesson:  if the issue of class arbitrability is delegated to an arbitrator for determination in the first instance, the resulting award becomes a hardened target with respect to its legal merits.  It may be challenged on the narrow grounds for vacatur set out in Section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 10(a), and it then benefits from the deference accorded to all arbitral awards.  Consequently, a decision concerning class arbitrability that might be reversed on de novo review if issued by a court will likely be left undisturbed if issued by an arbitrator.

That lesson alone is important to any company that uses a form arbitration clause in many substantially similar contracts – e.g, employment, consumer, financial, or insurance agreements.  It highlights the urgency of getting one’s form(s) of arbitration agreement in order, including the advisability (i) to state clearly whether arbitrability issues – and class and/or collective arbitrability issues in particular – are to be determined by a court or an arbitrator in the first instance, and (ii) to expressly prohibit class and collective arbitration if bilateral arbitration is the sole desired structure for dispute resolution.

To illustrate the point, consider that SCOTUS decided in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S.Ct. 1407, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2943 (U.S. Apr. 24, 2019), that when a court is deciding the matter under the FAA in the first instance, neither silence nor ambiguity in an arbitration agreement regarding the permissibility of class arbitration is a sufficient basis to find that the parties agreed to permit class arbitration.  And SCOTUS implied that incorporation by reference of institutional rules such as those of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), including its Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitration, is not a sufficient basis to infer an agreement to permit class arbitration.  (The AAA’s Supplementary Rules are expressly consistent with that. See R-3.)

But, as the Second Circuit pointed out, the parties in Lamps Plus had agreed that a court, not an arbitrator, should resolve the class arbitrability question, and so the District Court’s decision in Lamps Plus was subject to de novo review on appeal, rather than the deferential review that applies concerning a motion to vacate an arbitrator’s award.  See, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34205 at *18.

In the Jock case, on the other hand, the class arbitrability issue had been delegated to an arbitrator for determination in the first instance:  (1) the appearing arbitrating parties had “squarely presented to the arbitrator” the issue of whether the controlling arbitration agreement permitted class arbitration, id. at *6, in effect resolving the delegation issue via an ad hoc agreement; (2) the operative arbitration agreement provided that the arbitrator shall decide questions of arbitrability and procedural questions, see id. at *12-*13; and (3) the operative arbitration agreement incorporated the AAA’s arbitration rules, including the delegation provision (see R-3) of its Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitration, which “evinces agreement to have the arbitrator decide the question of class arbitrability,” id. at *12, citing Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Sappington, 884 F.3d 392, 396 (2d Cir. 2018).  The Second Circuit justifiably took these manifestations to be “clear and unmistakable evidence” of an intent by the appearing parties to delegate the class arbitrability issue to an arbitrator.

The wild card question, however, was whether the non-appearing putative class members should be deemed bound by that delegation.

It is worth recalling that the Jock case has a lengthy history in the Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit, having bounced back and forth between those courts several times already.  In an earlier go-round, after an arbitrator had “certified” a class of 44,000 employee claimants (including 250 active claimants),1 the District Court denied respondent Sterling’s motion to vacate that CDA, but the Second Circuit reversed and remanded, noting that it had not previously squarely determined “whether the arbitrator had the power to bind absent class members to class arbitration given that they…never consented to the arbitrator determining whether class arbitration was permissible under the agreement in the first place.”  2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34205 at *6.  On remand, the District Court then vacated the arbitrator’s CDA.  But the Second Circuit reversed again, this time based principally on the appellate court’s determination that the arbitrator had been authorized to adjudicate class arbitrability in the first instance, and so the District Court’s review of that award was therefore limited by (a) the narrow grounds for vacatur set out in FAA § 10(a)(4) and (b) the requisite deferential standard of review of such awards.

In that decision, which SCOTUS eventually let stand, the Second Circuit arguably could have addressed a number of issues:

(1) did the parties to the operative arbitration agreement delegate the class arbitrability issue to an arbitrator?

(2) did the non-appearing members of a putative class too delegate the class arbitrability issue to the particular arbitrator in the pending arbitral proceeding?

(3) are the non-appearing putative class members, who were not parties to the operative arbitration agreement, bound by that arbitrator’s decision regarding class arbitrability?

(4) should the District Court have vacated the arbitrator’s CDA?

The Second Circuit first determined that the class arbitrability issue had been delegated to an arbitrator.  It also decided that the District Court should not have vacated the CDA because the arbitrator had the authority, based on the delegation, to resolve the class arbitrability issue in the first instance, and the merits of that determination therefore were not up for review even if the District Court believed that it had been wrongly decided as a matter of law.

Finally, the Second Circuit decided– and this was novel– that the arbitrator had the authority to reach the class arbitrability issue even with respect to the non-appearing putative class members.  2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34205 at *15.  Thus, the appellate court decided that, in the circumstances, the non-signatory “absent class members” (a) were deemed to have delegated the class arbitrability issue to the particular arbitrator in the proceeding in question, and (b) were bound by her determination that class arbitration was permitted.

The court’s rationale was:  (1) each of the non-appearing putative class members respectively had made an arbitration agreement with respondent Sterling Jewelers that was substantially identical to the agreement upon which the appearing arbitration participants relied; (2) they thereby consented to, and indeed “bargained for,” an arbitrator’s authority to decide the class arbitrability issue, see id. at *11, *14; (3) that constituted an express contractual consent to delegation by the non-appearing putative class members, see id. at *17; and (4) even if the non-appearing class members had not expressly agreed to “this particular arbitrator’s authority,” id. at *15, that did not matter because judicial class actions routinely bind absent members of mandatory or opt-out classes, id. at *15-*16.  (But of course, arbitration is not litigation, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 does not apply in arbitrations.)

Notably, this rationale appears to be inconsistent with the skepticism in this regard expressed by Justice Alito in his concurring opinion in the Oxford Health case.  Justice Alito had opined that an arbitrator’s interpretation of an arbitration agreement generally “cannot bind someone who has not authorized the arbitrator to make that determination,” and that “it is difficult to see how an arbitrator’s decision to conduct class proceedings could bind absent class members who have not authorized the arbitrator to decide on a class-wide basis when arbitration procedures are to be used.”  Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter, 133 S.Ct. at 2072 (Alito, J., concurring).  Thus too, “an arbitrator’s ‘erroneous interpretation’ of a contract that does not authorize class procedures cannot bind absent class members who have ‘not authorized the arbitrator to make that determination.’”  2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34205 at *10-*11, citing Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 574 (2013) (Alito, J., concurring).

Nevertheless, SCOTUS let the Jock decision, with all it entails, stand.  And we are left to puzzle out what further lessons SCOTUS intended to convey in this regard.

1 The arbitrator “certified” an arbitration class solely for purposes of injunctive and declaratory relief, and it was an opt-out class (which is usually certified for class action litigations seeking money damages) rather than an opt-in class (which might have lent more justification to the CDA) or a mandatory class.

©1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
ARTICLE BY Gilbert A. Samberg  of Mintz
For more articles on litigation, visit the National Law Review ADR / Arbitration / Mediation section.

Spooktacular Severability Ruling Raises Barr From The Dead, Buries TCPA Claims Arising Between November 2015 and July 2020

A few weeks ago, the Eastern District of Louisiana held that courts cannot impose liability under Sections 227(b)(1)(A) or (b)(1)(B) of the TCPA for calls that were made before the Supreme Court cured those provisions’ unconstitutionality by severing their debt collection exemptions.  The first-of-its-kind decision reasoned that courts cannot enforce unconstitutional laws, and severing the statute applied prospectively, not retroactively. Plaintiffs privately panicked but publicly proclaimed that the Creasy decision was “odd” and would not be followed.

So much for that. Yesterday, the Chief Judge of the Northern District of Ohio followed Creasy and dismissed another putative class action.  The new case—Lindenbaum v. Realgy—arose from two prerecorded calls, one to a cellphone and another to a landline. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that “severance can only be applied prospectively,” that Sections 227(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(B) were unconstitutional when the calls were made, and that courts lack jurisdiction to enforce unconstitutional statutes. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing, among other things, that a footnote in Justice Kavanaugh’s plurality opinion in Barr v. AAPC suggests “that severance of the government-debt exception applies retroactively to all currently pending cases.”

The court sided with the defendant. It began by agreeing with Creasy that this issue “was not before the Supreme Court,” and the lone footnote in Justice Kavanaugh’s plurality opinion is “passing Supreme Court dicta of no precedential force.” It then surveyed the law and found “little, if any, support for the conclusion that severance of the government-debt exception should be applied retroactively so as to erase the existence of the exception.” It reasoned that, while judicial interpretations of laws are “given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events,” severance is different because it is “a forward-looking judicial fix” rather than a backward-looking judicial “remedy.” In short, severance renders statutes “void,” not “void ab initio.”

Defendants are now two-for-two in seeking dismissal of claims based on the now-undeniable unconstitutionality of the debt-collection exceptions in Section 227(b)(1)(A) or (b)(1)(B). With more such motions pending in courts across the country, this may become a powerful weapon against whatever claims remain after the Supreme Court’s decision in Facebook v. Duguid.

© 2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.
For more articles on the TCPA, visit the National Law Review Litigation / Trial Practice section.