As we have previously written, N.J.L.J. Nov. 19, 2018, the published opinion in Flanzman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., 456 N.J. Super. 613 (App. Div. 2018), introduced a new element by which arbitration clauses in New Jersey were to be judged. Despite explicit provisions in the Federal Arbitration Act and the New Jersey Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (as well as prior acts and Appendix XXIX-B to the Court Rules) providing a solution to the perceived problem, the court required that clauses must either select the forum or arbitrator to decide the dispute to be arbitrated or specify a means of designating the arbitrator.
On Sept. 11, 2020, the New Jersey Supreme court reversed that opinion and held, consistent with comparable cases in federal and state courts throughout the country, that Section 11 of the New Jersey Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-11, which authorizes a court to designate an arbitrator under various circumstances, provides a means to fill the “gap” left by the parties’ contractual language. Notably, the Supreme Court held that this result is consistent with Atalese v. United States Legal Services Group, L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014), as well as the law governing contracts in New Jersey generally.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
