Following is a summary, by category, of recent opinions of note concerning arbitration process issues.
, No. 11-1445 (4th Cir. April 1, 2013) (vacating judgment that found arbitration clause unconscionable; remanding for court to compel individual arbitration; class waiver not unconscionable under Concepcion; insufficient evidence that arbitration fee-splitting provision rendered arbitration cost prohibitive)
, Case No. 12-00923 (USDC E.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2013) (granting motion to dismiss and compel arbitration; right to participate in a FLSA collective action can be waived; plaintiffs failed to meet burden of showing that costs of individual arbitrations are cost prohibitive)
, Case No. 12-02737 (USDC D. Kan. March 12, 2013) (denying motion to stay and compel arbitration; arbitration clause language in supply agreements was limited to disputes “arising out of” those agreements, and did not encompass dispute connected with claims based on separate stock purchase agreement)
, Case No. 11-05919 (USDC W.D. Wash. Feb. 11, 2013) (granting motion to stay and compel arbitration against non-signatory to arbitration agreement under alter ego and equitable estoppel theories; free-standing arbitration agreement encompassed dispute arising out of separate license agreement because it “approve[d] and consent[ed]” to the license agreement and thus was “intimately linked” to it)
, Case No. 12-00455 (USDC W.D. Va. March 13, 2013) (granting motion to stay pending completion of arbitration; notwithstanding presence of non-arbitrable claims and parties not involved in arbitration, stay would serve considerations of judicial economy, and avoidance of confusion and possible inconsistent results)
, No. 12-40475 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2013) (affirming denial of motion to compel arbitration; no abuse of discretion in denying motion to compel non-signatories to arbitration under equitable estoppel theory)
, No. 12-55050 (9th Cir. Jan. 30, 2013) (affirming denial of motion to compel arbitration in putative class action; notwithstanding agreement to arbitrate arbitrability, district court had authority to determine arbitrability between plaintiff/signatories and defendant/non-signatories; equitable estoppel did not permit appellant/non-signatories to compel arbitration where claims were not intertwined with contracts containing arbitration agreement)