RECENT ARBITRABILITY DECISIONS: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE VOID
There have been a number of decisions recently on the issue of arbitability:
- Denial of motion to compel affirmed: Arbitration provision void due to agreement’s non-compliance with California workers compensation insurance laws. Ceradyne, Inc. v. Argonaut Ins. Co., G039873 (Cal. Ct. App. June 2, 2009)
- Motion to compel individual arbitration denied: Class arbitration waiver void as unconscionable under Washington state law. Coneff v. AT&T Corp., No. C06-944 (W.D. Wa. May 22, 2009)
- Denial of motion to compel affirmed: Arbitration provision void under California arbitration statute for possibility of conflicting rulings. Schwartz v. Vista Pointe Salton Sea, LLC, D052988 (Cal. Ct. App. June 2, 2009)
- Motion to compel granted, no procedural or substantive unconscionability: Nayal v. Hip Network Services IPA, Inc., 08-10170 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2009)
- Motion to vacate order compelling arbitration granted for defendant’s waiver: Apple & Eve, LLC v. Yantai North Andre Juice Co., Ltd., 07-745 (E.D.N.Y. April 27, 2009)
This post written by John Pitblado.
