Client Alerts & Insights
Know Your Arbitration Clause: What Remains of State Arbitration Statutes under the Ever-Growing FAA
October 11, 2024
Authored By:
Arbitration is a prevalent method for dispute resolution, and most contracts include an arbitration clause. A recent Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals decision emphasizes the importance of careful drafting and picking the appropriate arbitration regime.
In Credit Acceptance Corporation v. Gloria Beard, et al., 2024-Ohio-4799, the parties had a sales contract that contained an arbitration clause governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The Parma Municipal Court stayed the case and compelled arbitration. Appellants challenged the judgment of the Parma Municipal Court, relying on R.C. 27022.02(C) which makes the grant of a stay pending arbitration a final appealable order.
The Court of Appeals, however, denied the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because (unlike an order denying arbitration) an order compelling arbitration and staying a case is not an appealable order under the FAA. In doing so, the Court of Appeals determined that the FAA preempted Ohio state law because the parties’ arbitration agreement specified that it was governed by the FAA and not by any state arbitration law.
The outcome would have been the same even if the contract had not specified the FAA at all. For purposes of compelling arbitration, a clause that does not specify an arbitration statute is governed by the FAA, and not by state arbitration law. This is true even if the contract generally specifies the substantive law of a specific state. See Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 60 (1995) (holding that absent a clear statement about arbitrability law, a choice-of-law clause governs only the parties’ “substantive rights and obligations,” not the “allocation of power between alternative tribunals”); see, e.g., Cape Flattery Ltd. v. Titan Mar., LLC, 647 F.3d 914, 921 (9th Cir. 2011) (under Mastrobuono, “courts should apply federal arbitrability law absent ‘clear and unmistakable evidence’ that the parties agreed to apply nonfederal arbitrability law.”).
The Gloria Beard ruling highlights the importance of specifying which body of rules will govern your arbitration. Not only will this decision impact how the arbitration will proceed, but it also impacts the appealability of an order compelling arbitration.
Benesch continues to monitor arbitration trends so that our clients can be aware of new developments and best practices.
For more information, contact a member of Benesch’s Litigation Practice Group.
Laura E. Kogan at lkogan@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4518.
Jim von der Heydt at jvonderheydt@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4160.
Caroline Hamilton at chamilton@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.6114.
Latest News
D.C. Circuit Rejects DOE’s Use of Emergency Authority to Prevent Coal Plant Retirement
The D.C. Circuit vacated the Department of Energy’s order compelling continued operation of Michigan’s J.H. Campbell coal plant under DOE’s emergency authority, finding that Section 202(c) is a narrow, last-resort power reserved for immediate grid-reliability emergencies, not longer-term resource planning.
New BIS “Affiliates Rule” Compliance Date is November 10 Unless Suspended by U.S.-China Truce
A new party screening requirement will soon impact compliance of international dealings unless the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Securities (“BIS”) issues a second extension of its effective date.
California’s New AI Law: What Legal Departments and Outside Counsel Need to Know
Newly enacted California Senate Bill 574 regulates how attorneys use generative AI by amending the California Code of Civil Procedure and requiring attorneys to personally verify every citation, whether sourced from AI or otherwise. It also holds law firms jointly responsible for sanctionable violations by their attorneys. The bill added a new section to the California Code of Civil Procedure (§ 1282.1), barring arbitrators from delegating their decision-making to generative AI.
Beyond Allulose: What Comes Next in Sugar-Related False Advertising Litigation?
The Franco decision has given plaintiffs a potential roadmap for challenging “Sugar Free,” “Zero Sugar” and similar claims when FDA guidance and existing regulations do not fully align.