Zimring v. Coinmach Corp., 2000 WL 1855115 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2000)

The two parties to the suit are parties to a contract with an arbitration clause. Plaintiff had signed the contract twice: once as a corporate officer and once personally but with a footnote saying his signature "was only for purposes of" two specific sections. Defendant sought to arbitrate a dispute with the plaintiff as an individual and plaintiff brought this suit to bar arbitration. Plaintiff asserted that his signature (in his personal behalf) essentially footnoted away his agreement to the arbitration clause, while the defendant asserted that plaintiff's footnote was a re-affirmation of the important clauses. The court, finding no express agreement to the arbitration clause of the contract, did not compel arbitration with that contract theory. The defendant then sought to compel arbitration by estoppel: since the plaintiff directly benefited from a contract containing an arbitration clause, he should not be able to escape that arbitration. The court found that the plaintiff was an "intentional non-signatory" to the arbitration clause and, therefore, his express disagreement with the arbitration clause is controlling.

Full decision on Westlaw: 2000 WL 1855115

Preston v. State of Connecticut, 60 Conn.App. 853 (2000)

Defendant terminated plaintiff from his employment. Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, the Union grieved on his behalf and the matter went to arbitration. Plaintiff waived union representation and preceded pro se. The arbitrator requested an extension for the award. The Employer and Union agreed to the extension but the Plaintiff did not contact the arbitrator with his position. Plaintiff filed an application to vacate the untimely award. The Court found that Plaintiff's waiver of union representation did not remove the union as a party. The agreement was between the Union and the Employer and granted those parties the authority to grant an extension. The award was upheld.

Full decision at

Union Planters Bank, N.A. v. Watson, 2000 WL 1841875 (Ala. Dec. 15, 2000)

Appeal from a circuit court decision stating that an agreement mailed to customers, which included an arbitration clause was not binding on the customers. The customers of Union Planters were sent a new information booklet which stated "that by signing your card and using your account, you acknowledge that you have read and understood this arbitration agreement, including the waiver of your right to a jury trial, etc." The court held that in order for an amendment of this type to be enforceable, it must be "clearly apparent in the contract, and its language must be unambiguous and unequivocal, leaving no room for doubt as to the intention of the parties." Merely using the card was not enough to trigger the amendment; the court stated that the signature card needed to be signed as well. Lower court decision holding arbitration agreement non-binding, AFFIRMED.

Full text of decision

Southern Energy Homes v. McCray, 2000 WL 1763365 (2000)

The Supreme Court of Alabama upheld their decision in Southern Energy Homes v. Ard -So.2d-(Ala. 2000), which stated that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, 15 U.S.C. A72301 et seq, does not invalidate arbitration provisions in a written warranty issued by a manufacturer of consumer goods. Appellee was the manufacturer of the Appellant's mobile home. Appellants claimed that the Appellees failed to correct defects in the mobile home even after repeatedly being given proper notice. Appellee moved to compel arbitration in the trial court, based on arbitration provisions in a document that accompanied the delivery of the home and a freestanding document executed by both parties at the time of purchase. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Full text of decision

Ohio State Department of Administrative Services v. Moody/Nolan Ltd., 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5759, 2000 WL 1808330 (December 12, 2000)

ODAS contracted with a general contractor for a building project. After completion there were several problems and a lawsuit was filed. As a part of the settlement, the general contractor assigned all of their rights and claims against their subcontractors to ODAS. ODAS filed a demand for arbitration and the subcontractors disputed the assignability and arbitrability of the dispute as well as other procedural matters. ODAS filed for a stay of arbitration so the court could decide the matters raised by the subcontractors. The court determined that the broad arbitration clause created a strong presumption of arbitrability which could only be overcome by express or other forceful evidence of exclusion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's dismissal of ODAS's action.

Full text: 2000 WL 1808330