ADR and Mediation

Plaintiff sued for unpaid wages and for damages from breach of employment agreement. Court properly denied Defendants' motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitrations. Although parties are subject to CBOT rules, Plaintiff's claims fall outside mandatory arbitration provision of CBOT Rule 600, as claims are based on breach of employment contract and not related to or arising out of Exchange transaction. The dispute-resolution section of Defendant's Operating Agreement supports conclusion that Plaintiff's claims can be resolved in state or federal court, and neither Operating Agreement nor Service Agreement specifically require arbitration for non-Exchange-related activities. (QUINN and STEELE, concurring.)

Plaintiff filed declaratory judgment action as to dispute over alleged sale of his interest in restuarant group to individual Defendant. Court erred in denying motion to compel arbitration. Operating agreement and membership assignment concern same subject matter, so dispute over validity of membership assignment is within scope of arbitration clause in operating agreement. As Plaintiff is challenging validity of membership assignment, and not the existence of arbitration clause in operating agreement, issue is a question for the arbitrator, not the court. (CUNNINGHAM and KARNEZIS, concurring.)

Plaintiff, a company with its principal place of business in Illinois, sued Defendant, a California LLC with registered offices in California, to vacate arbitration award and for declaratory judgment as to jurisdiction to enforce or vacate arbitration award. Parties had twice submitted disputes to arbitration, per clause in license agreement, and arbitrations took place in California. Plain language of Illinois Uniform Arbitration Act vests circuit court with subject matter jurisdiction, but parties agreed to conduct arbitration in California with no other specific location indicated in license agreement. Thus, Illinois courts are not the proper tribunal to adjudicate dispute about award, absent parties' express agreement to arbitrate in Illinois. (NEVILLE and MURPHY, concurring.)

Plaintiffs filed declaratory judgment action seeking declaration that contract entered into by parties, to secure purchaser of assets or stock of corporation, is void on grounds that Defendant failed to properly register its services with State of Illinois. Court granted motion to compel arbitration based on contract provision for binding arbitration. The presence of a generic state choice-of-law clause in a contract which incorporates the AAA rules of arbitration does not indicate that the parties explicity intended that disputes encompassed by the arbitration agreement be settled pursuant to Arbitration Act. Whether the contract is void ab initio is a controversy between the parties relating to the agreement, which issue must be arbitrated. (WRIGHT, specially concurring; HOLDRIDGE, dissenting.)

Parties entered into agreement to lease registered Jersey cows, and eight years later signed "Arbitration Agreement" for arbitrators to decide dispute over delivery of cows. Arbitrators improperly inquired what Defendants thought would be a fair result, and improperly made a motion to delegate to Defendants the duty to determine amount of award, which was outside the powers of arbitrators listed in Agreement. Arbitrators exceeded their powers by failing to adhere to terms of Agreement, and violated the settled principle of arbitration to decide the merits of the matter before them. (WELCH and WEXSTTEN, concurring.)