Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

When Ameriprise Financial fired Renard, a financial adviser, for violation of the franchise agreement between the two, Ameriprise claimed that Renard owed it $530,000 on loans made to help Renard build his franchise. Renard disagreed. Ameriprise initiated arbitration under the agreement, which provides that Minnesota law governs, except “all issues relating to arbitrability,” are “governed by the terms set forth in [the] agreement, and to the extent not inconsistent with this agreement, by the rules of arbitration of” the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Wisconsin arbitrators rejected Renard’s counterclaims and awarded Ameriprise most of what it sought. Renard filed suit to vacate the award. The court confirmed the award and required Renard to pay additional interest. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Renard’s argument that Ameriprise’s counsel procured the award through fraud and that the arbitrators acted in manifest disregard of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law and Minnesota tort law. His showing was far short of the high standard needed to upset the outcome of an arbitral proceeding. The panel did not issue a written opinion, so it was not clear how it reached its conclusions, but nothing suggested that it strayed so far that the “manifest disregard” standard was triggered. View "Renard v. Ameriprise Fin. Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Bell sued attorney Ruben and his firm, alleging that they negligently and fraudulently mismanaged her trust, causing a loss of $34 million. Before arbitration, Ruben filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Bell filed an adversary complaint opposing discharge of Ruben’s fraud-based debt to her, 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A), (4). The bankruptcy judge granted Ruben a discharge of his other debts, but not of that fraud debt. Ruben’s liability insurance did not cover fraud. Bell settled her negligence claims against Ruben and all claims against the other defendants in arbitration. The arbitration panel ruled, with respect to the fraud claim, that “damages proven to be attributable to the actions of [Ruben] have been compensated,” but ordered Ruben to pay administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) totaling $21,200.00 and that compensation and expenses of the arbitrators, advanced by Bell, totaling $150,304.54 would be borne by Ruben. AAA rules, which governed the arbitration, provide that expenses of arbitration “shall be borne equally” unless the parties agree otherwise or the arbitrator assesses expenses against specified parties. Ruben refused to pay. The bankruptcy judge entered summary judgment in favor of Ruben. The district court reversed, in favor of Bell. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Ruben v. Bell" on Justia Law

An employer that withdraws from an underfunded pension plan must cover its share of the shortfall, 29 U.S.C. 1381, 1391. After concluding that Allega had withdrawn, the Central States Pension Fund sent it a bill for about $375,000. The employer has 90 days to ask a pension plan to review its decision.. If the plan adheres to the original decision or does not act within 120 days, the employer has another 60 days to seek arbitration. For Allega, the last day was July 16, 2013. On July 9 Allega sent the Fund a letter demanding arbitration. It followed up on July 29 with a notice to the American Arbitration Association.: The AAA’s rules require that notices go to both the pension administrator and the AAA. The Fund has adopted those rules, but Allega did not notify the AAA within the statutory time limit. The district court concluded that Allega had waited too long to seek arbitration and must pay withdrawal liability as the Fund calculated it. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the Fund’s failure to act within 120 days on a request for reconsideration tolled the time to seek arbitration. View "Cent. States, SE & SW Areas Pension Fund v. Allega Concrete Corp." on Justia Law

Pine Top, an insurer, sued Banco, an entity wholly owned by Uruguay, claiming that Banco owes $2,352,464.08 under reinsurance contracts. The complaint sought to compel arbitration but alternately proposed that the court enter judgment for breach of contract. Pine Top moved to strike Banco’s answer for failure to post security under Illinois insurance law. The district court denied the motion and later denied the motion to compel arbitration. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, citing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which prohibits attaching a foreign state’s property, thereby preventing application of the Illinois security requirement, 28 U.S.C. 1609. Banco did not waive its immunity in the manner allowed by that law and Pine Top forfeited contentions that the McCarran-Ferguson Act allows a state rule to govern. On the arbitration question, the court held that denials of motions to compel arbitration under the Panama Convention are immediately appealable under 9 U.S.C. 16(a)(1)(B), but that the contract language, reasonably read, does not transfer the right to demand arbitration. View "Pine Top Receivables of IL, LLC v. Banco de Seguros del Estado" on Justia Law

Doe settled his sexual abuse claims against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee for $80,000 after participating in a voluntary mediation program. He later filed a claim against the Archdiocese in its bankruptcy proceedings for the same sexual abuse. Doe responded to the Archdiocese’s motion for summary judgment by contending that his settlement was fraudulently induced. The argument depends upon statements made during the mediation, but Wisconsin law prohibits the admission in judicial proceedings of nearly all communications made during mediation. Doe argued that an exception applies here because the later action is “distinct from the dispute whose settlement is attempted through mediation,” Wis. Stat. 904.085(4)(e). The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Archdiocese. Doe’s bankruptcy claim is not distinct from the dispute settled in mediation. The issue in both proceedings, which involved the same parties, is the Archdiocese’s responsibility for the sexual abuse Doe suffered. Doe sought damages in both the mediation and bankruptcy for the same sexual abuse; he did not seek separate or additional damages for the alleged fraudulent inducement. View "Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee" on Justia Law

The Everetts formerly operated a PDRI franchise. After that franchise was terminated, they violated a non-compete clause. Only Mr. Everett and the Everetts’ corporation actually signed the franchise agreement. PDRI sought to bind Ms. Everett to an arbitration award pursuant to the franchise agreement. Although Everett was a non-signatory to the franchise agreement, PDRI asserted she was subject to arbitration under the doctrine of direct benefits estoppel. The district court determined that the benefits Everett received were filtered through her ownership interest in their corporation or through her husband and were therefore indirect. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Everett did receive a direct benefit. It is clear that the Everetts’ corporation was formed to gain the benefit of the franchise agreement and was used only to conduct the business of the franchise; Ms. Everett had a 50% ownership and played an active role in running the corporation.View "Everett v. Paul Davis Restoration, Inc." on Justia Law

Hennessy, a car parts manufacturer, beset by asbestos-related personal injury claims, sought coverage by National Union. The companies entered into a cost sharing agreement in 2008. As claims occurred, Hennessy asked National Union to indemnify its settlement and defense costs. To resolve their differences about what was owed, Hennessy demanded arbitration under the agreement, which instructs arbitrators to apply Illinois law. Hennessy filed suit under the Illinois Insurance Code 215 ILCS 5/155(1), which provides that, in cases involving vexatious and unreasonable delay, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, other costs, plus an additional amount. Hennessy claimed that National Union’s delays in providing coverage were vexatious and unreasonable. The district judge declined to dismiss, acknowledging a provision that “the arbitrators shall not be empowered or have jurisdiction to award punitive damages, fines or penalties,” but expressing a belief that Hennessy’s claim arose under statutory law rather than under the cost-sharing agreement. National Union appealed under 9 U.S.C. 16(a)(1)(A), (B), the Federal Arbitration Act. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Hennessy waived any right to ask the arbitrator to award punitive damages, fines, or penalties for an allegedly unreasonable delay. Having submitted a dispute to arbitration that explicitly excludes a particular remedy, a party cannot sue in court for that remedy.View "Hennessy Indus., Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Steak n Shake owns and operates 415 restaurants and grants about 100 franchises for the operation of Steak n Shake restaurants by others. The operators of franchises in Missouri, Georgia, and Pennsylvania claim that since 1939, franchisees have set their own menu prices and participated in corporate pricing promotions at their option. After a corporate takeover in 2010, Steak n Shake enacted a new policy that requires them to adhere to company pricing on every menu item and to participate in all promotions. They also must purchase all products from a single distributor at a price negotiated by Steak n Shake. The policy had an adverse effect on revenues. The franchisees sought a declaratory judgment. About a month later, Steak n Shake adopted an arbitration policy requiring the franchisees to engage in nonbinding arbitration at Steak n Shake’s request and moved to stay the federal lawsuits. The district court refused to compel arbitration. Although each franchise agreement (except one) contained a clause in which Steak n Shake “reserve[d] the right to institute at any time a system of nonbinding arbitration or mediation,” the district court concluded that any agreement to arbitrate was illusory. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the arbitration clauses are illusory and unenforceable under Indiana law, and declining to address whether the disputes were within the scope of the arbitration agreements or whether nonbinding arbitration fits within the definition of arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.View "Druco Rests., Inc. v. Steak N Shake Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

The Plaintiffs sued Payday Financial, Webb, an enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and other entities associated with Webb, alleging violations of civil and criminal statutes related to loans that they had received from the defendants. The businesses maintain several websites that offer small, high-interest loans to customers. The entire transaction is completed online; a potential customer applies for, and agrees to, the loan terms from his computer. The district court dismissed for improper venue, finding that the loan agreements required that all disputes be resolved through arbitration conducted by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe on their Reservation in South Dakota. Following a limited remand, the district court concluded that, although the tribal law could be ascertained, the arbitral mechanism detailed in the agreement did not exist. The Seventh Circuit held that the action should not have been dismissed because the arbitral mechanism specified in the agreement is illusory. Rejecting an alternative argument that the loan documents require that any litigation be conducted by a tribal court on the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Reservation, the court stated that tribal courts have a unique, limited jurisdiction that does not extend generally to the regulation of nontribal members whose actions do not implicate the sovereignty of the tribe or the regulation of tribal lands. View "Jackson v. Payday Fin., LLC" on Justia Law

The Union filed suit against a nuclear energy facility to compel arbitration after a union employee was discharged without just cause. The court reversed the district court's denial of the Union's motion to compel arbitration where the Union's grievance, on its face, clearly falls within the scope of the arbitration clause. View "Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. NextEra Energy Point Beach LLC" on Justia Law