ADR and Mediation

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claim that defendant had wrongfully sent spam text message to plaintiff’s cell-phone, where said motion was based on arbitration clause contained in cell-phone agreement between T-Mobile and plaintiff’s mother. Generally, court cannot compel party to arbitrate dispute unless said party has agreed to do so, and while Dist. Ct. applied federal law to grant motion to compel arbitration, it should have applied state promissory estoppel principles to decide whether non-party to contract should be bound by terms of another person’s contract. Moreover, under Illinois law, defendant could not rely on estoppel principles to enforce T-Mobile’s arbitration clause against plaintiff, because defendant cannot show any detrimental reliance on statements or conduct of plaintiff.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff’s request to enforce $9 million arbitration award in favor of plaintiff, where plaintiff had alleged that defendants breached contract to renovate hotel and to operate said hotel using plaintiff’s business methods and trademarks. While defendants argued that arbitrator improperly refused their request to depose attorney regarding circumstances of negotiations leading up to signing of contract, Ct. found no violation under 9 USC section 10(a)(3) for alleged “refusal to hear evidence,” since said statute pertained only to conduct occurring during hearing and not during discovery. Moreover, attorney’s advice during negotiations was not relevant to parties’ contract dispute, especially where contract had integration clause that foreclosed resorting to negotiation history as interpretation tool. Also, Ct. rejected defendants’ argument that award conflicted with federal and state franchise law, where: (1) defendants’ purported “legal errors” did not qualify as ground to refuse enforcement of arbitration award; and (2) none of defendants’ arguments concerned violation of rights of third-parties.

Dist. Ct. had jurisdiction to confirm arbitrator’s $82,528.10 award in favor of plaintiff in plaintiff’s action alleging that defendant committed legal malpractice while representing plaintiff in underlying mortgage foreclosure action. Instant malpractice action was stayed by Dist. Ct. pending arbitration pursuant to agreement by parties to submit to arbitration any dispute arising out of defendant’s representation of plaintiff. Thus, Dist. Ct. had jurisdiction to act on plaintiff’s subsequent request to confirm arbitration award because Dist. Ct. had stayed, as opposed to dismissed plaintiff’s original lawsuit. Fact that defendant had filed state court action seeking to vacate arbitrator’s award prior to plaintiff coming back to Dist. Ct. to confirm said award did not require different result.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in one plaintiff’s lawsuit alleging that defendant-co-worker defrauded him and interfered with his employment with parties’ employer-securities and investment banking firm, where said employment contract contained clause calling for arbitration before FINRA with respect to “matters relating to your employment.” Record showed that said plaintiff was person associated with FINRA, due to said plaintiff’s employment with parties’ employer, even though plaintiff was not employed by said employer at time instant lawsuit had been filed. However, Dist. Ct. erred in granting same motion to compel arbitration with respect to second plaintiff, who had not signed relevant employment contract containing instant arbitration clause.