Again, the courts have misunderstood and misapplied the Supreme Court’s consumer-protection decision in Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., L.P. In Epstein v. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., A-1157-14T1, an unpublished Appellate Division case decided Jan. 22, 2016, the court affirmed the denial of a motion to enforce an arbitration clause in the firm’s shareholders’ agreement that required AAA arbitration of “[a]ny controversy or claim arising out of, or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof.” Plaintiffs asserted a CEPA claim when they were fired, claiming that they opposed an unethical and inadequate settlement of a pending case.
Plaintiffs claimed that the courts should determine whether the agreement required arbitration. Defendant, citing the AAA rules, claimed an arbitrator should make this decision. The trial judge found factual issues and denied the motion, and the Appellate Division agreed.
This content has been archived.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]
