ADR and Mediation

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing instant complaint alleging that defendant-employer failed to pay plaintiff-employee relocation costs as promised where parties had entered into "Dispute Resolution Process" that required both parties to arbitrate "employment-related" disputes. Ct. rejected plaintiff's claim that arbitration clause covered only issues contained in separate employment contract. Ct. also rejected defendant's request for sanctions, even though it deemed instant appeal frivolous, where defendant had not made said request in separate motion, as required under Fed. R. App. P. 38.

In class action alleging violations of Ill. Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, as well as breach of contract arising out of contention that defendant rendered plaintiff's GSM phone and equipment useless and refused to honor features and prices stemming from agreement between plaintiff and defendant's predecessor, Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant's motion to compel arbitration, even though applicable arbitration clause was not contained in predecessor's agreement, but was contained in invoice issued to plaintiff by defendant. Language of instant arbitration clause was sufficiently broad to encompass instant dispute, where clause applied to any of defendant's services and equipment, and where instant lawsuit was predicated on defendant's (as opposed to predecessor's) actions in rendering his GSM phone inoperable. Moreover, arbitrator, as opposed to court, must decide whether arbitration clause was procedurally unconscionable.

In arbitration proceeding in which two arbitrators were unable to agree as to appointment of third arbitrator, Dist. Ct. could properly appoint third arbitrator under section 5 of Fed. Arbitration Act. Ct. rejected defendant's claim that Dist. Ct. lacked jurisdiction to appoint arbitrator where: (1) prior to said appointment, Dist. Ct. had determined that arbitrators could resolve separate issue regarding defendant's motion to compel de-consolidation of instant arbitration; and (2) defendant had argued that only Dist. Ct. could resolve de-consolidation issue before arbitration could continue. Ct. similarly found that Dist. Ct. had jurisdiction to appoint arbitrator during defendant's appeal of Dist. Ct.'s de-consolidation order since Ct. of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant's appeal where de-consolidation order was interlocutory in nature and where said order did not fall within limited provisions for appeal under 9 USC section 16(a)(1)(B).

In action seeking specific performance of terms of parties’ settlement agreement or alternatively alleging breach of contract and fraud, Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s motion to stay instant action based on arbitration clause contained in settlement agreement. While Dist. Ct. had found that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate instant dispute based on defendant’s participation in plaintiff's prior litigation seeking to reopen lawsuit that generated instant settlement agreement, record demonstrated no waiver where defendant's prior participation in lawsuit consisted of filing pleading that challenged court’s jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s lawsuit based upon existence of arbitration agreement. Fact that defendant had prevailed in prior lawsuit and participated in plaintiff’s appeal of lawsuit’s dismissal did not require different result. Moreover, while Dist. Ct. rejected defendant’s request to stay portion of plaintiff’s action against non-signatories to settlement agreement based upon said arbitration clause, Dist. Ct. could not act on defendant’s request since defendant lacked standing to assert rights of non-signatory co-defendants.

Dist. Ct. erred in vacating portion of arbitration award that found that defendant had solely invented and owned certain foreign patents, after finding that arbitration panel had disregarded law when finding in favor of defendant as to ownership of foreign patents. Dist. Ct.'s rationale is not contained in any of four areas that arbitration award may be vacated under Federal Arbitration Act, and Dist. Ct.'s conclusion that arbitrators disregarded law by failing to discuss foreign patents separately from domestic patents did not justify vacatur of award. Ct. further noted that Dist. Ct. had failed to identify law that arbitrators had violated.