Does Your Dispute 'Arise Under' or 'Relate to' Arbitration Agreement?
ADRHow carefully do you consider the scope of your agreement to arbitrate? Experience reflects that parties will often negotiate the terms…
September 27, 2017 at 04:37 PM
7 minute read
Abraham J. Gafni |ADR
How carefully do you consider the scope of your agreement to arbitrate? Experience reflects that parties will often negotiate the terms of their business arrangement with care. After reaching an understanding on all substantive matters, however, and impatient to complete their work, they often opt for a cookie-cutter arbitration provision that, subsequently, may not provide the mandatory dispute resolution procedure expected.
Recent cases from Florida and Virginia reflect how inattention to the arbitration provision may later frustrate a party seeking to enforce it.
In Saunders v. St. Cloud 192 Pet Doc Hospital, 5D17-45, (Fla. 5th DCA, Aug. 11) (an opinion that has apparently not yet been deemed final and is subject to revision or withdrawal), Amanda Saunders had been hired by Pet Doc as a managing doctor of veterinary medicine. She later brought suit claiming constructive discharge due to sexual discrimination in violation of a county ordinance as well as Pet Doc's negligence in hiring, training and supervision.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Baker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
US Judge Denies Dismissal of Claims Using 'Enterprise Theory' of Corporate Veil Piercing
3 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1Appellate Division Greenlights State Bar's Leadership Diversity Initiatives
- 2SEC’s Latest Enforcement Actions Fuel Demand for Big Law
- 3Sterlington Brings On Former Office Leader From Ashurst
- 4DOJ Takes on Largest NFT Scheme That Points to Larger Trend
- 5Arnold & Porter Matches Market Year-End Bonus, Requires Billable Threshold for Special Bonuses
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
