New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Arbitration Compelled against Non-Parties — Equitable Estoppel — Intertwining — Non-Parties Who Move to Compel Arbitration Ordered to Submit to It

Download PDF

From NS Holdings LLC v. Am. Int’l Group, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125077 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2010):

Having found the arbitration provision to be enforceable, the Court must now address the provision's applicability to Defendants AIG and Chartis. The policy at issue in this case was entered into between Plaintiffs and Defendant AISLIC. Defendants AIG and Chartis are not signatories to the policy. However, in certain circumstances, "a non-signatory to a contract containing an arbitration provision can compel arbitration under an equitable estoppel theory." ValueSelling Associates, LLC v. Temple., 2009 WL 3736264 at *6 (S.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Long v. Silver, 248 F.3d 309, 320-21 (4th Cir. 2001). See also Allianz Global Risk U.S. Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Co., 2010 WL 749876 (C.D. Cal. 2010); Reddam v. KPMG LLP, 2004 WL 3761875, at *5 (C.D. Cal. 2004); Choctaw Generation Ltd. Partnership v. American Home Assur. Co., 271 F.3d 403, 407 (2nd Cir.2001). "Under this theory, a plaintiff cannot invoke an agreement and claim the benefit of his status under it while attempting to escape its consequences." Temple, 2009 WL 3736264 at *6. With respect to the specific issue of arbitration clauses, "a non-signatory can compel a signatory to arbitrate a dispute where 'the issues the nonsignatory is seeking to resolve in arbitration are intertwined with the agreement that the estopped party has signed.'" Allianz Global Risk U.S. Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Co., 2010 WL 749876 at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Mundi v. Union Sec. Life Ins. Co., 555 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2009)). In this case, Plaintiffs' claims, including those against AIG and Chartis, invoke the benefits of the insurance policy and involve issues that are intertwined with the policy agreement. Defendants AIG and Chartis thus may compel compliance with the policy's arbitration provision.

On the other hand, Plaintiffs correctly note that non-signatories AIG and Chartis cannot themselves be required to arbitrate. With the instant Motion, the Defendants AIG and Chartis seek to compel arbitration. Given this, it would be odd indeed to assume that these Defendants are not willing to engage in arbitration. In an abundance of caution, however, and to ensure the fairness of the proceedings, the Court conditions its grant of Defendants' Motion on Defendants AIG and Chartis agreeing to submit to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO: (1) Victim vs. Perpetrator Enterprises — (2) § 1962(b): Elements of a Violation — (3) Meaning of “Interest” and “Control” in § 1962(b) — (4) The Defendant in a § 1962(b) Action Need Not Be an Enterprise; The Victim Must Be An Enterprise — (5) Acquisition/Maintenance Injury Required (6) Aiding and Abetting Liability under RICO

Rule 11 Sanctions: Request for Bill of Particulars re Sanctions Proceeding Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — Court’s Discretion Narrows As Severity of Sanction Increases OR When It Initiates the Sanction Proceeding Itself — Particularly Strict Abuse of Discretion Standard Applied — “Rule 11 Does Not License a District Court to Sanction Any Action by an Attorney or Party That It Disapproves of” (Good Quote) — Failure to Provide Identify Specific Pleading and Detail Specific, Objectionable Conduct within that Pleading Violates Due Process — Failure to Provide Notice That Most Severe Sanction May Be Imposed Violates Due Process — Failure to Provide Notice That “Scarlett Letter Sanction” (Mandatory Circulation of Sanctions Order) Or Other Sanction That Could Leave Indelible Imprint on Career Might Be Imposed Violates Due Process — Notice That Law Firm Might Be Sanctioned Insufficient to Afford Notice to Firm Lawyer and Managing Partner That He Might Be Sanctioned — Refusal to Impose Additional Sanction Until Impact of Other Imposed Penalties (Not Sanctions) Ascertained to See Whether Sanction Needed

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: (1) Exclusion of Expert Testimony Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion Even When It Results in Summary Judgment — (2) Whether Physicians Must File 26(a)(2)(B) Report Depends on Whether They Formed Their Opinions for Litigation Or in the Course of Medical Treatment — (3) Party Seeking to Avoid Exclusion of Its Expert for Noncompliance with Rule 26 Bears Burden of Showing Harmlessness or Substantial Justification — (4) Expert Report Subject to Exclusion If It Is Conclusory and Does Not Meet the Level of Rigor Required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)

RICO: The Statute Defines Enterprise Broadly, “But That Breadth Is Not Without Limit” (Good Quote) — Enterprise Inadequately Pled Where Plaintiffs Fail to Name the Common Purpose, Explain How the Relationships Among the Defendants Allowed Them to Advance That Purpose, Or Specify the Period of Time Sufficient to Achieve That Purpose — In a Particular Case, the Pattern of Racketeering May Be Sufficient to Infer the Existence of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise, But Pattern Does Not Necessarily Establish Enterprise — A RICO Conspiracy May Exist Regardless of Whether the Substantive RICO Violation Is Consummated, But the Substantive Violation Must Be Adequately Pled

RICO: (1) Claim Accrued When Plaintiff Suffered, and Was Aware of, Her Injury — Overt Retaliation in Her Employment As A Result of Reporting Another Employee’s Sexual Misconduct — Not When a Report Confirming that Misconduct Later Became Public; (2) Inhouse Lawyer’s Conclusion No Sexual Misconduct Occurred Is a Mere Expression of a Legal Conclusion, Not Deception Warranting SOL Reprieve Due to Equitable Tolling or Fraudulent Concealment — Plaintiff Exhibited Lack of Diligence in Failing to Consult Own Counsel or Challenge Inhouse Counsel’s Conclusion; (3) Causation: Plaintiff Must Prove Her Injuries Were Directly Caused by the Predicate Acts — (4) Concealment of Report Commissioned by Employer Directly Harmed Employer (by Exposing It to Liability) and Victims of Sexual Misconduct, and Only Indirectly Harmed Plaintiff Who Suffered Retaliation in Her Employment for Reporting the Misconduct

RICO: Without Injury to Business or Property, Injury Resulting from RICO Violation Is Not Actionable under RICO — Meaning of “Property” in § 1964(c) — Meaning of “Business” in § 1964(c) — Mere “Expectancy Interests” ≠ Business or Property — Loss of NCAA Eligibility = Loss of a Status, Not Loss of Property — Pecuniary Losses (Here, Attorney’s Fees) Flowing from a Non-Cognizable Injury Are Not Recoverably via RICO

RICO: Enterprise Not Sufficiently Distinct from Defendant Where Enterprise Allegedly Consisted of the Defendant Corporation, Corporate Employees, Their Counsel and “Friends”

FRAP 38 Sanctions Should Not Lightly Be Awarded on the Ground That an Incorrect Argument Was Frivolous — “An Appeal Can Be Weak, Indeed Almost Hopeless, Without Being Frivolous” (Good Quote) — There Must Be “No Legitimate Basis for Pursuing the Appeal” (Good Quote)

Severe Emotional Distress and Trauma ≠ RICO Injury — Parents’ Voluntary Financial Support of Adult Daughter Who Was Forced to Sign Over Her Annuity in Violation of RICO Not Proximately Caused by RICO Violation — Injury Is Derivative, Not Direct (Intimation of Different Result if Financial Support Required by Law) — RICO Injury Is Requirement for Statutory Standing (12(b)(6) Issue), Not Constitutional Standing (12(b)(1) Issue)

RICO — Neither Filing a Complaint Nor Issuing a Press Release Constitutes Wire Fraud — Litigation Privilege Is Absolute and Bars All Tort Claims Other Than Malicious Prosecution — Abuse of Process Claim Barred (California Law)

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice