Asserting the Right to Compel Arbitration

By Shaun Blake

As last month’s decision by the Central District of California in the Toyota Hybrid Brake Class Action case demonstrates, simply raising a contractual right to arbitrate as an affirmative defense may not be enough to protect a party's right to compel arbitration.  

In its Answer, Toyota raised as an affirmative defense an arbitration clause contained in certain dealer agreements excuted by the Class Plaintiffs (purchasers of hybrid vehicles with allegedly defective anti-lock braking systems).  Thereafter, in support of its subsequent Motion to Compel Arbitration, Toyota contended that it had preserved the right to compel arbitration as it awaited the United States Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011). Toyota argued that, prior to Concepcion, any motion to compel arbitration would have been futile because class action waivers were generally unenforceable under California law.

The Court disregarded Toyota’s argument, noting that Concepcion only speaks to the enforceability of class action arbitration waivers in adhesion contracts involving disputes over small sums of money.  The Court observed that Toyota had “vigorously” litigated the class action for two years by conducting discovery, filing motions, and seeking a protective order. Finding prejudice to the Class Plaintiffs in the form of considerable resources spent pursuing a litigation strategy in federal court, the Court held that Toyota had waived its right to compel arbitration. 

In South Carolina, “There is no set rule as to what constitutes a waiver of the right to arbitrate; the question depends on the facts of each case.”  Hyload, Inc. v. Pre-Engineered Prods., Inc., 417 S.E.2d 622, 624 (S.C. Ct. App. 1992).  Significant litigation conduct can waive a contractual right to arbitrate. See, e.g. Liberty Builders, Inc. v.Horton, 521 S.E.2d 749, 753 (S.C. Ct. App. 1999) 
Therefore, parties and their counsel need to be vigilant regarding these rights and move to compel arbitration at the outset of their cases.


Popular posts from this blog

Legalized, But Regulated: Commercial Hemp in South Carolina

Image
On December 20, 2018 the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018  (the "2018 Farm Bill") became law.  Following closely on the heels of the 2018 Farm Bill, on March 28, 2019 the South Carolina Hemp Farming Act  ("S.C. Hemp Farming Act") was signed into law.  The following is a brief overview of the status of hemp (also called "commercial hemp" or "industrial hemp") farming and regulation in South Carolina in the wake of the 2018 Farm Bill and the S.C. Hemp Farming Act. Background The terms "hemp" (which has non-drug connotations and uses) and "marijuana" (no further explanation necessary) describe the same plant genus: cannabis. The difference between the two is generally based on the relative amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the plant. Hemp plants are cultivated to produce fiber and seeds and very little if any THC. Marijuana plants, on the other hand, are cultivated to produce more THC. THC
Read more

What Authority the Principal Chose: Arredondo, POAs, and Arbitrability

Image
It was only a matter of time before arbitrability (the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate) put a South Carolina courts in the position to construe the language in a power of attorney ("POA"). And this opinion did.  I try to view these decisions through the lens of how an attorney practicing in South Carolina might learn from them. And this decision, like some others involving the FAA and arbitrability, (for example, Grant v. Kuhn Chevrolet  or Herron v. Century BMW  , had the litigator and the drafter in me scratching my head.  Or at least I was confused until I learned about what had happened legislatively in the time since the POAs at issue in Arredondo were scrutinized by three (3) South Carolina courts. This decision, involving a POA executed before January 1, 2017, is likely an anomaly or a one-off, as going forward the S.C. Uniform Power of Attorney Act (SCUPOA) provides a guide for the creation of POAs that may avoid the necessity for so much judicial scruti
Read more

The SC Insurance Data Security Act: Ask Some Questions to Evaluate Your Security Program

Image
The  South Carolina Insurance Data Security Act  (“Act”), fashioned after the  NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law  (Model Law), went into effect on January 1, 2019. South Carolina was the first state in the nation to pass this legislation, and others (Ohio, Mississippi), have followed suit. The Act requires that each South Carolina person licensed or authorized by the South Carolina Department of Insurance (DOI) a “Licensee” must implement, no later than July 1, 2019, a “comprehensive written information security program” (“Program”) designed to protect nonpublic information (NPI) and the security of the Licensee’s information system. In addition, the Act requires a Licensee to report to the Director of the DOI within 72 hours following an actual or potential “cybersecurity event.” S.C. Code Section 38-99-40(A) (Section 6(A) of the Model Act). While South Carolina Licensees (hopefully) are well down the path to meeting the Act’s requirements, the following may be u
Read more