Despite Delay, Failure to Plead, and Participation in Litigation, Federal Court Enforces Arbitration Clause


Mandatory arbitration clauses have proven to be very powerful weapons employed by businesses to avoid the duration, expense, and often times negative publicity associated with protracted litigation in both federal and state courts across the country. Carefully drafted arbitration clauses have also protected businesses from class actions which, when certified, can frequently mean the difference between a $100 versus a $100 million verdict.

Over the past few decades, there has been a clear judicial penchant towards the enforcement of arbitration clauses, particularly given the strong pro-arbitration policy under the Federal Arbitration Act. See, e.g., AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011); American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013). When an arbitration clause might apply, it is important to raise it as soon as possible in response to litigation to avoid a finding that the right to compel arbitration has been waived.

Please see full Alert below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Topics:  Arbitration, Mandatory Arbitration Clauses

Published In: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Updates, Civil Procedure Updates, General Business Updates, Products Liability Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »