Reinsurance Focus

In a putative class action alleging violation of Pennsylvania labor laws, unfair trade practices, and other state law claims brought by a franchisee against the franchisor and two subsidiaries, the court stayed the proceedings and compelled individual arbitration. The franchise agreement contained an arbitration clause and a class arbitration waiver provision, among other provisions limiting litigation, discovery, and certain damages, and shifting certain fees and costs. The plaintiff franchisee argued that the arbitration provision was unenforceable because it prevented him from effectively vindicating his state statutory rights. The court rejected this argument, holding that Concepcion and other U.S. Supreme Court precedent confirmed that there is “absolutely no rule that prevents arbitration when a person cannot effectively vindicate his or her state statutory rights,” and that the “effective-vindication” rule may apply only when the FAA is alleged to conflict with another federal law. The court also applied equitable estoppel to reject the franchisee’s alternative argument that only the franchisor, the sole signatory to the franchise agreement, could compel arbitration; the court found that the franchisee relied on the franchise agreement in his pleading, and that a close relationship existed among the defendant entities. The court also construed the agreements between the parties to find that the claims asserted by the franchisee fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Last, the court construed the scope of the arbitration provision and held that it applied to the franchisee’s claims, notwithstanding the franchisee’s argument that his claims did not arise out of the franchise agreement. The provision covered disputes “arising out of or relating to” the “rights and obligations of the parties,” which clearly applied. Moreover, “a party may not be compelled under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so” (citing Stolt-Nielsen). Torres v. Cleannet, U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02818 (USDC E.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 2015).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.