Skip to content
  • CAREERS
  • CONTACT US
Search
Close
anthony ostlund logo
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS
Menu
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS

Waiving the Right to Arbitrate Becomes Easier

  • June 30, 2022

Minnesota Lawyer and Finance & Commerce – Partner Content

Author: Ryan Lawrence

 

The U.S. Supreme Court recently expanded the circumstances under which a party may waive its right to demand arbitration. In Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 142 S. Ct. 1708, 1711 (2022), the Court held that the Eighth Circuit erred in conditioning a waiver of the right to arbitrate on a showing of prejudice.

 

A party may be forced to arbitrate its claims only where it has previously agreed to do so. Such agreements are generally binding, and there is a strong policy in favor of arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 2; Minn. Stat. § 572B.06; Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 217–18 (1985). Sometimes, however, arbitrable claims do not begin in arbitration, but instead, one of the parties commences a lawsuit in court. Under such circumstances, a defendant is entitled to file an application to stay the litigation and compel arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 3; Minn. Stat. § 572B.07. A failure to promptly seek this relief raises the issue of whether the defendant has waived its right to compel arbitration.

 

Waiver is a voluntary relinquishment of a known right. Waiver, including the intent to waive the right to arbitration. may be inferred from conduct. See Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. v. Gorgone, No. 21-0780, 2021 WL 5040280, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 29, 2021); Stern 1011 First St. S., LLC v. Gere, 937 N.W.2d 173, 177 (Minn. Ct. App. 2020), rev. denied (Mar. 25, 2020). For example, the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently held in Stern that the defendants waived their right to compel arbitration by first filing a motion to dismiss. 937 N.W.2d at 177–78.

 

Most federal circuits (including the Eighth Circuit), as well as Minnesota courts, adopted an additional requirement for waiver of the right to arbitration. Based upon the strong policy favoring arbitration, those courts have held that the party invoking waiver must, in addition to showing an intention to waive the right to arbitration, also demonstrate prejudice. See Morgan, 142 S. Ct. at 1713; Stern, 937 N.W.2d at 179. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected that requirement.

 

In Morgan, the Court reasoned that the Federal Arbitration Act’s policy favoring arbitration “does not authorize federal courts to invent special, arbitration-preferring procedural rules.” 142 S. Ct. at 1713. The Court clarified that the policy favoring arbitration is merely an acknowledgement that agreements to arbitrate should be as enforceable as other contracts, but not more so. Id. So, courts must hold a party to its arbitration agreement as it would any other agreement, but “a court may not devise novel rules to favor arbitration over litigation.” Id. The Court also construed Section 6 of the Act, which provides that applications under the statute shall be made “in the manner provided by law,” to require that the “usual federal procedural rules” should apply, including rules regarding the timeliness of such a motion. Id. at 1714.

 

Thus, waiver of the right to arbitrate in cases governed by the Federal Arbitration Act no longer requires a showing of prejudice, and parties must be even more diligent to avoid unintentionally waiving the right to arbitrate. The Federal Arbitration Act is broad in scope, extending as far as federal authority to regulate commerce. Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies, Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 277 (1995). In other words, where a contract containing an arbitration clause involves interstate commerce, the Federal Arbitration Act applies.

 

Strictly speaking, Morgan construed only the Federal Arbitration Act and clarified the applicable federal procedural rules. It remains to be seen whether Minnesota courts will follow suit, especially in cases governed by the Minnesota Uniform Arbitration Act. Minnesota, however, adopted the prejudice requirement for waiver of the right to arbitration based upon the trend in federal courts. See Bros. Jurewicz, Inc. v. Atari, Inc., 296 N.W.2d 422, 429 n.8 (Minn. 1980) (citing an opinion from the Eastern District of New York and noting with approval the “modern view” in “other jurisdictions” that prejudice must be shown). It therefore seems likely that Minnesota courts will follow Morgan.

In any case, regardless of whether a prejudice requirement will continue to be applied in Minnesota courts, it seems prudent for parties who wish to compel arbitration to move expeditiously to do so.

PDF of Article

related attorneys

Loading...

Ryan M. Lawrence

related practice areas

Loading...
AO-logo-initials

90 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 3600
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
P 612.349.6969       F 612.349.6996

 

© 2021 ANTHONY OSTLUND LOUWAGIE DRESSEN BOYLAN P.A.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

  • 651•312•6500
  • 651•312•6618
  • People
  • Litigation
  • Successes
  • News
  • About
  • Fee Arrangements
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • People
  • Litigation
  • Successes
  • News
  • About
  • Fee Arrangements
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS
search
disclaimer
Linkedin
Join Our Email List

© 2021 ANTHONY OSTLUND LOUWAGIE DRESSEN BOYLAN P.A. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT