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)

Agency/Estoppel

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)