Recent decisions on arbitration process issues:

Motion to Compel Arbitration Appeals

Saleemi v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., No. 87062-4 (Wash. Jan. 17, 2013) (affirming trial court’s order compelling arbitration in Washington, notwithstanding forum selection clause providing for Connecticut arbitration; appellant failed to seek discretionary appeal, and instant appeal, which came after the arbitration award, required appellant to show prejudice; distinguishing Concepcion in cases not dealing with class arbitration waivers)

13 Parcels v. Laquer, No. 3D12-608 (Fla. Ct. App. Dec. 26, 2012) (reversing denial of motion to compel arbitration; appellants did not waive arbitration, notwithstanding limited motion practice in underlying action and in a prior litigation between the parties)

Marsden v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., No. DA 12-0341 (Mont. Dec. 28, 2012) (affirming granting of motion to compel arbitration; where disputed employment agreement provided for arbitration of “any dispute” arising therefrom, issue for arbitration whether agreement was valid in the first instance)


James T. Scatuorchio Racing Stable, LLC v. Walmac Stud Management, LLC, Case No. 5:11-cv-00374 (USDC E.D. Ky. Jan. 2, 2013) (denying motion to dismiss where only one out of multiple agreements between parties contained arbitration clause, and only a portion of the claims would thus be submitted to arbitration; certain non-signatories to arbitration agreement who undertook burdens and received benefits under the agreement were bound to arbitrate under estoppel; one-sided arbitration clause not unconscionable where parties at time of contract were represented by counsel)

East Texas Medical Center Regional Healthcare System v. Slack, Case No. 2:12-cv-00307 (USDC E.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2013) (denying motions to compel arbitration; corporate non-signatory not bound to arbitrate under agency theory merely based on corporate relationship; denying stay of litigation with non-signatory where claims subject to arbitration were not “inherently inseparable” from claims subject to litigation)