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

Res Judicata — Respondent’s Failure to Assert in Arbitration His Defense that the Contract Was Procured by Fraud Precludes Later Lawsuit on that Ground — All Arbitrable Issues Must Be Submitted to Arbitration

Download PDF

 

Clinton v. Hendricks & Lewis PLLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3131 (9th Cir. Feb. 20, 2014):

Plaintiff-Appellant George Clinton appeals district court orders (1) granting Hendricks & Lewis's ("H&L") Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Clinton's fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation claims, and (2) granting H&L's motion for summary judgment on Clinton's legal malpractice and declaratory relief claims.

***

In May 2005, Clinton retained H&L to represent him in civil litigation to recover ownership rights in some of his music recordings. The parties executed a written contract that included an arbitration clause that read in part, "if any dispute should arise between you and us regarding the amount of the fees or costs due to us under the terms of this agreement, the exclusive means of resolving the dispute shall be by submission to binding arbitration." Clinton did not pay his bills, and H&L terminated the relationship in August 2008.

In subsequent arbitration proceedings, H&L sought more than $1.5 million in unpaid legal fees. Clinton failed to assert affirmative defenses or counterclaims during arbitration, and he elected not to attend the arbitration hearing, which resulted in an award to H&L of nearly $1.7 million. United States District Judge John Coughenour confirmed the arbitration award in May 2010.

Later, Clinton sought (1) a declaration that only fee-related disputes were subject to arbitration, and (2) more than $10 million in damages for legal malpractice and professional negligence (together "legal malpractice"), as well as fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation.

The district court dismissed Clinton's fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation claims on the theory that they were barred by res judicata. The district court also granted summary judgment to H&L on Clinton's legal malpractice claim, reasoning that California law--and its one-year statute of limitations--applied to bar Clinton's claim. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.6. Finally, the district court denied as moot Clinton's request for a declaration regarding the scope of the arbitration agreement. This appeal followed.

***

Because Clinton's fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation claims challenge the validity of the underlying retainer agreement--rather than the validity of the arbitration clause itself--they were arbitrable. See, e.g., Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 449 (2006) ("[A] challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause, must go to the arbitrator."); ATSA of Cal., Inc. v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 702 F.2d 172, 175 (9th Cir. 1983) ("[W]hen  parties agree to submit disputes to arbitration, it is presumed that the arbitrator will be authorized to determine all issues of law and fact necessary to resolve the dispute."), amended by 754 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1985). Because arbitration decisions have preclusive effect, see Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., 966 F.2d 1318, 1321 (9th Cir. 1992), Clinton's failure to raise those claims at arbitration bars him from raising them here, see Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980) (holding that under res judicata, parties may not "relitigat[e] issues that were or could have been raised" in a prior action (emphasis added)). As the district court properly concluded, the arbitration award "necessarily presumed the validity and enforceability" of the retainer agreement--an agreement that Clinton may not now collaterally attack.

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