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: Circuit Split on Manifest Disregard — Adhesion Contract Shortening Statute of Limitations Is Void on Public Policy Grounds If It Leaves Plaintiff Too Little Time to Investigate Her Claim

Download PDF

Tucker v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16666 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2012):

In this case, Plaintiff's principal argument is that the arbitrator acted in contravention of the court's holding in Thurman v. DaimlerChrysler, Inc., 397 F.3d 352 (6th Cir. 2004). Specifically, the arbitrator did not recognize that "an agreement to shorten a statute of limitations violates public policy if the agreement fails to afford the aggrieved party with a reasonable amount of time to investigate and file an action in the context of a federal cause of action." Pl.'s Br. 7, 9, 11 (citing Thurman, 397 F.3d at 354-59). Plaintiff's reliance on Thurman is misplaced.

In Thurman, an employer included a six-month limitation of actions provision in its employment applications. 397 F.3d at 358. An employee was sexually harassed in September and October 1999. Id. at 354-55. She first filed suit in June 2000, but the suit "was dismissed by the district court due to the repeated failure of the [the employee's] counsel to appear and participate in court ordered conferences." Id. at 355. The employee then refiled suit in August 2000, arguing that the provision was unenforceable because it was an unreasonable term in an adhesion contract. Id. at 357. Specifically, the employee argued that "the clause is unreasonable because there was not a sufficient opportunity to investigate her claims and determine the extent of her damages." Id. at 358. Disagreeing, the court held that six months provided the employee with "ample time to investigate her claim and determine her damages." Id. The court noted that the employee had been "referred to medical and psychological treatment one week after the first incident," had "filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights on September 29, 1999," had "filed a criminal complaint . . . on October 20, 1999," and had even "filed the first lawsuit encompassing the underlying events within the abbreviated limitations period." Id.

The Thurman rule of reasonableness, however, applies only to adhesion contracts. See id. at 357. ***

Turning to Plaintiff's alternative, "manifest disregard" argument, the Court observes that it is not obvious that manifest disregard of the law remains a viable independent ground for setting aside an arbitration decision. See generally Leigh F. Gill, Note, Manifest Disregard After Hall Street: Back From the Dead -- The Surprising Resilience of a Non-Statutory Ground for Vacatur, 15 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 265 passim (2011) (discussing circuit split in Hall Street's wake); Hiro N. Aragaki, The Mess of Manifest Disregard, 119 Yale L.J. Online 1 passim (2009), http://yalelawjournal.org/2009/09/29/aragaki.html (same).***

Some courts have read [Hall Street] as vitiating the "manifest disregard" ground of vacatur. See, e.g., Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. Bacon, 562 F.3d 349, 350 (5th Cir. 2009) (rejecting manifest disregard as an independent ground due to Hall Street). The Sixth Circuit, however, has read Hall Street in a more restrained fashion, suggesting that "manifest disregard" may have continuing vitality. See, e.g., Grain v. Trinity Health, Mercy Health Servs., Inc., 551 F.3d 374, 380 (6th Cir. 2008) ("It is true that we have said that 'manifest disregard of the law' may supply a basis for vacating an award, at times suggesting that such review is a 'judicially created' supplement to the enumerated forms of FAA relief.").

Assuming that manifest disregard of the law may yet supply a basis for vacating an award in an appropriate case, it does not do so here. Under Sixth Circuit precedent, "[a]n arbitration panel acts with manifest disregard if (1) the applicable legal principle is clearly defined and not subject to reasonable debate; and (2) the arbitrators refused to heed that legal principle." Elec. Data Sys. Corp. v. Donelson, 473 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Dawahare v. Spencer, 210 F.3d 666, 669 (6th Cir. 2000)).

Here, Plaintiff asserts only that the arbitrator acted with manifest disregard for [a] principle discussed above -- namely, the Thurman rule that "an agreement to shorten a statute of limitations violates public policy if the agreement fails to afford the aggrieved party with a reasonable amount of time to investigate and file an action in the context of a federal cause of action." Pl.'s Br. 11. As noted above, Plaintiff does not explain why Thurman applies to a non-adhesive stipulation executed by counsel for both parties. Plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitrator's decision on this ground shall be denied as well.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

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