The Evolving Relationship Between Arbitration and the Appellate Courts
APPELLATE ANSWERS: Despite decades of arbitration, questions persist regarding the Appellate Division's role regarding arbitration agreements and resultant awards.
August 26, 2021 at 10:00 AM
6 minute read
Almost one century ago, Congress addressed a history of perceived judicial hostility to arbitration by adopting the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.A. §§1-16, to "make valid and enforceable" written arbitration provisions. 9 U.S.C. §2. The New Jersey Arbitration Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-1 to -36, was enacted 70 years ago. Despite decades of arbitration, questions persist regarding the Appellate Division's role regarding arbitration agreements and resultant awards. For example, the threshold question of when to allow appellate review of the enforceability of arbitration agreements has only recently been resolved, and, the relationship between arbitration and the appellate courts continues to evolve.
Rule 2:2-3(a) establishes the parameters for an appeal "as of right" to the Appellate Division, essentially limiting that right to appeals from judgments that are final as to all parties and all issues. This standard proved problematic when parties disagreed on whether their dispute was governed by an arbitration provision. As a result of amendments that followed the Supreme Court's decisions in Wein v. Morris, 194 N.J. 364, 380 (2008), and GMAC v. Pittella, 205 N.J. 572, 586 (2011), Rule 2:2-3(a)(3) now provides that "any order either compelling arbitration … or denying arbitration" is appealable as of right. Moreover, such appeals are given preference in calendaring. Rule 2:11-1(a).
Still, some claims and parties remain left out of such an appeal because they are not subject to the arbitration agreement. Additional rule amendments, adopted within the last decade, rescued them from litigation limbo. Rule 2:9-1(a) created an exception to the general rule, which strips a trial court's jurisdiction over all matters, except for enforcement and correction, once the Appellate Division assumes jurisdiction. The rule requires trial courts to retain jurisdiction over claims and parties that remain once an appeal is taken from orders granting or denying arbitration. Then, Rule 2:9-5(c) authorizes any party to request a stay of the trial court proceedings pertaining to such claims or parties pending appeal, and permits any party subject to the order compelling arbitration to request the trial court stay an order for arbitration pending appeal.
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'Point Us to the Plain Language': NJ Supreme Court Grills Defense Statutory Requirements for Affidavit of Merit
5 minute read3rd Circuit Judges Zero In on Constitutional Challenges to Medicare Drug Pricing Program
Trending Stories
- 1Jury Finds Dentons, Ex-Partner Beats Malpractice Claim Over $54 Million Currency Deal
- 2Former Cahill Executive Committee Member, Leveraged Finance Pioneer Dies at 67
- 3State Attorney General Faces Federal Courtroom Test Over Crypto Mining Ban
- 4The Corporate Transparency Act: One Year Later With Deadline Looming
- 5Getting Cameras in Federal Courts Will Take More than Logic
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