DISCLAIMER

Sending an e-mail will not establish an attorney-client relationship. As a result, you should not send us any information that you would want treated confidentially.

CONTINUE CANCEL

ARBITRATION

Friday, January 16, 2015

Homer Bonner Jacobs Ortiz has tried hundreds of arbitrations across the country.  Over the past decade alone, the firm has tried tens of dozens of arbitrations to conclusion. Hundreds more have been litigated to successful resolution.  Whether before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the American Arbitration Association, the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, or other arbitral bodies, we try cases.  The firm takes special pride in this area of its practice because arbitration often presents special challenges in collecting and marshaling evidence.   Arbitration requires highly developed skills of cross-examination and the ability to adapt on the fly to evidence that may emerge only during the final hearing.  We excel at this process.

Because Homer Bonner Jacobs Ortiz believes in the arbitration process, we often recommend arbitration agreements to our clients.  The firm has been fortunate to play a prominent role nationally in the recent development of arbitral law under the Federal Arbitration Act.  Our experience with this still developing area of the law has given us insights into the process of drafting effective arbitration agreements, which we do for many of our corporate clients.

Getting to arbitration is sometimes half the battle.  Here, too, the firm’s record has been remarkable.  The following decisions evidence this:

  • Owens v. Rosenhaus, et al., No. 13-27602-THORNTON (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Nov. 22, 2013). The trial court compelled the plaintiff’s alleged claims to arbitration before the National Football League Players Association for the arbitrator to determine any issues of arbitrability and to decide all arbitrable claims, and denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion to stay or enjoin the arbitration.
  • Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 733 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2013). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order refusing to compel the plaintiff’s alleged claims for injunctive relief under California’s unfair competitive law, false advertising law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, finding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted the California Supreme Court decisions which exempted such claims from arbitration.
  • Allen, et al. v. Am. Trades Inst. of Florida, Inc., et al., No. 09-82004-CIV-BUTCHKO (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. May 2, 2012), aff’d per curium, 2013 WL 2670946 (Fla. 3d DCA June 12, 2013). The trial court compelled the plaintiffs’ alleged claims to individual arbitration before the American Arbitration Association over the plaintiffs’ allegations attacking the underlying enrollment agreements.
  • Younessi v. Recovery Racing, LLC, 88 So.3d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a state trial court’s demand that the defendants select an arbitrator in a manner that was inconsistent with the parties’ arbitration agreement and the agreed-upon rules of the American Arbitration Association.
  • Bernal, et al. v. Burnett, et al., 793 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (D. Colo. 2011) . The district court compelled the plaintiffs’ alleged claims to arbitration over the plaintiffs’ assertion that the arbitration agreements were unconscionable.
  • Kimble v. Rhodes Coll., Inc., No. 10-5786-CIV-CHEN, 2011 WL 2175249 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2011). The district court compelled the plaintiff’s alleged claims to arbitration for the arbitrator to determine issues of arbitrability, finding that clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate arbitrability because the arbitration agreement incorporated the AAA’s Consumer Rules which also include the AAA’s Commercial Rules.
  • Miller v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 769 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (D. Utah 2011). The district court compelled the plaintiffs’ alleged claims to individual arbitration over the plaintiffs’ assertion that the arbitration agreements were procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
  • Montgomery v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., No. 11-365-CIV-LEINENWEBER, 2011 WL 1118942 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2011). The district court compelled the plaintiffs’ alleged claims to individual arbitration over the plaintiffs’ assertion that the arbitration agreements were procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
  • Barkl v. Career Education Corp., Civil No. 10–3565 ADM/JJG, 2010 WL 4979231 (D. Minn. Dec. 2, 2010). The district court compelled plaintiff’s alleged claims to arbitration over the plaintiff’s assertion that the arbitration agreement was a contract of adhesion and unconscionable.
  • Nat’l Fin. Services, LLC v. Mahan, 19 So. 3d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). The court reversed the trial court and held that the arbitration provisions in the plaintiff’s customer agreement were not procedurally unconscionable.
  • Rodriguez v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., No. 07-02648-CIV-NOTTINGHAM, 2008 WL 2979505 (D. Colo. Aug. 1, 2008). The district court compelled the plaintiff’s alleged claims to arbitration in accordance with the parties’ arbitration agreement.
  • Allen Alvarez, et al. v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., et al.; Case No. 04-11323 (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct. July 9, 2007). The trial court compelled over 100 plaintiffs to individual arbitration.
  • Michael A. Nelson v. Barron Trading Group, Inc., No. 502006CA006727XXXXMB-GERBER (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. Feb. 7, 2007). The trial court, after conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the arbitration agreement at issue was forged, determined that the arbitration agreement was valid and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration.
  • Anderson v. Corinthian Colleges, No. C06-5157 FDB, 2006 WL 2380683 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2006). The district court stayed action brought by non-signatories to an arbitration agreement pending arbitration of similar claims brought in separate lawsuits by signatories to the arbitration agreement.
  • Adrienne Travis v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., et al.; Case No. 04-CA-001999 (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct. Oct. 19, 2005). Trial court compelled putative class action to arbitration.
  • Burns v. Hamilton, et al., No. 02-1388-CIV-BARKER, 2003 WL 23104230 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 7, 2003).The district court compelled the plaintiff’s alleged claims against National Commodities Corp. to arbitration over the plaintiff’s assertion that he was fraudulently induced to enter into the customer agreement and arbitration agreement, and that the National Commodities Corp waived its right to arbitration.
  • Knight v. Xebex, et al., 750 F. Supp. 1116 (M.D. Fla. 1990). The district court compelled the plaintiff’s alleged claims against Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. to arbitration over the plaintiff’s assertion that Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. had waived its right to arbitration and that it should be estopped from asserting that right.

Leave a Reply