Arbitration, Celebrities: Trump v. Omarosa Celebrity Wrestling Match, Round 1, Arbitration?
Celebrity Wrestling Match/Cat Fight.
I have received a confidential television script from a disloyal former staff member of the White House. In episode 571 of the long-running reality show, “Raging Dumpster Fires At 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” the courtly, urbane and impeccably mannered DJT and the villainous Omarosa Manigault Newman (OMN) grease up for a wrestling match in the ring. But this soon turns into a cat fight, with DJT and OMN trying to scratch out each other’s eyes. DJT calls OMN “a dog” and “crazed low-life” and OMN calls DJT “unhinged” and a “racist”. OMN smacks DJT with a rolled-up copy of Forbes. And as everyone by now knows, DJT, who is a germaphobe, and has a long history of using canine insults, has an intense dislike of dogs, being the first president in a long time, perhaps the first president ever, not to have a White House First Dog. The match seems remarkably even, given DJT’s little paws, and OMN’s sharp nails. Is this truly a made-for TV reality show, or is this a telenovela, complete with betrayal, infidelity, and violent emotion? Alas, those attributes do not help at all to distinguish between the TV reality show and the telenovela. Is this rotten script believable enough to be accepted even by a tasteless TV show with tabloid standards? To ask the question is to answer it: of course.
Where in the world is this post going? Oh yes, Team DJT has filed with the AAA to enforce a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) in arbitration in New York. And if, as Politico reports, the enforcement proceeding has been launched by the Trump for President Campaign, based on OMN's release of her book Unhinged, what impact, if any, will this have on confidentiality during the time in the White House?
We previously had some fun posting about Team DJT’s efforts to enforce an NDA with Stephanie Gregory Clifford (Stormy Daniels) in the privacy of arbitration, where dirty linen is not to be aired in public. I will not begin to opine where the latest fight between DJT and OMN is destined to end. Badly, is my best guess. What does the NDA say? Which one will apply, an NDA for the Apprentice? For the campaign? For the White House? What remedies does the NDA provide, and will they be found to be enforceable? Did OMN have a security clearance requiring pre-publication review of any writing that might contain classified information? Will OMN be able to obtain the legal firepower necessary to carry on a legal battle? Will the anti-matter DJT, Michael Avenatti, now step forward and represent her? Will she be able to successfully stake out a position as a whistleblower? Is there a written rule or statute that prohibits taping a conversation in the Situation Room? Were OMN’s tapes recorded in Florida (where both parties must consent to taping) or in Washington D.C. (where taping can be done unilaterally)? Does one have a reasonable expectation of privacy if taping can be done unilaterally? Are there considerations of public policy and freedom of speech that militate against using a private NDA to ensure confidentiality in the White House? Have other White Houses routinely required staff members to sign NDAs? Will parallel court proceedings be filed, resulting in a public airing of grievances and naked transparency? And even if the matter can be forced into arbitration, will the cat be out of the bag, so to speak, with so-called confidential information no longer confidential?
I plan to consume many bags of popcorn while I sit back and watch the hideous show.
BONUS: For a serious discussion of OMN's free speech rights in this kerfuffle, see Bradley P. Moss's article published August 14, 2018 in Lawfare, entitled "Why the White House Can't Stop Omarosa Manigault-Newman From Talking."
Arbitration: Disclosures, Section 1286.2 (Vacatur): 2/7 DCA Orders Vacatur Of Adverse Award Against Plaintiff/Claimant Because Arbitrator Had Actual Awareness Of And Failed To Disclose Other Pending Arbitrations Involving Defendant/Respondent
Plaintiff Waived Vacatur Right As To Ethics Standard 12(b), But Did Not Waive Rights To Vacate Based On Arbitrator’s Failure To Make Required Disclosures Under Ethics Standard 7(d).
Here is the ending quotation before the “Disposition” paragraph in Honeycutt v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. B281982 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 2, 2018) (certified for publication; Segal, J., author; Perluss, P.J., concurring; and Feuer, J., concurring): “’That all may drink with confidence from their waters, the rivers of justice,’ whether they flow through our public or private systems of dispute resolution, ‘must not only be clean and pure, they must appear so as to all reasonable men and women.’ (U.S. v. State of Ala. (11th Cir. 1987) 828 F.2d 1532, 1552.)” (Slip Op., p. 29.)
Honeycutt concerned an employment arbitration by plaintiff/claimant against her former employer which was a defendant/respondent after employer successfully moved to compel arbitration in the filed lawsuit. In a California arbitration, an arbitrator must make certain statutorily-mandated and ethically-mandated disclosures to the parties, including Ethics Standard 7 [whether the arbitrator is serving as a neutral arbitrator in another prior or pending case involving a party to the current or a lawyer for a party] and Ethics Standard 12 [whether the arbitrator will entertain offers of employment or new professional relationships in any capacity other than as a lawyer, expert witness, or consultant from a party or a lawyer for a party, including offers to serve as a dispute resolution neutral in another case; and, if so, disclose the offer and acceptance in each case within 5 days of same].
The facts were that the arbitrator filled out the AAA disclosures, but there was a missing page where the arbitrator checked he would entertain other offers even though one of the other pages actually sent to the parties did have a handwritten explanation to the missing question that he would entertain offers to serve as a dispute resolution neutral in other cases and would evaluate any potential conflict at that time prior to accepting each offer. However, the arbitrator failed to timely disclose that during the pendency of the Honeycutt arbitration, he had been appointed to serve as an arbitrator in eight other employment cases involving counsel for Chase and two others (one being an employment case) involving Chase—with the parties only receiving four of the eight letters concerning employment cases involving counsel for Chase before the arbitration was completed. Importantly, an arbitrator has a continuing obligation to make required disclosures all along the way. After Honeycutt lost the arbitration, the AAA administrator sent the missing page and all 10 letters about the other cases involving the Honeycutt arbitrator. Honeycutt’s counsel sent AAA a disqualification demand based on the belated disclosures. AAA advised Honeycutt that the arbitrator was not disqualified, with a zero award to Honeycutt and each side ordered to bear administrative fees and arbitrator compensation/expenses “as incurred.” Honeycutt moved to vacate the award (given that arbitrator nondisclosure is a mandatory basis for vacatur under CCP § 1286.2(a)(6)(A)), but the trial judge confirmed it instead, finding sufficient disclosures and no prejudice.
The 2/7 DCA panel reversed and ordered that the award be vacated based on the arbitrator’s failure to make disclosures under Standard 7(d) [other cases involving Chase’s counsel or Chase].
With respect to the failure to make the Standard 12 disclosure, the appellate court found Honeycutt waived her right to vacate on this basis; after all, she failed to object although knowing about the missing page and knowing about the handwritten disclosure such that it was unfair for her to delay raising the issue until after she lost the arbitration.
Different matter, altogether, with respect to the Standard 7(b) nondisclosures. Even though a vacatur requires that the arbitrator has actual awareness of a ground for disqualification, the panel found he had to in light of the fact that he was a participant in the other cases. The appellate court questioned whether an arbitrator, unlike an attorney, can blame a case manager, assistant, or secretary for an arbitrator’s failure to comply with the Ethical Standards, given that the arbitrator has actual awareness of his own intent to entertain offers of employment and then to accept them—which triggered disclosure obligations. Honeycutt did not waive this right to vacate, because it was a right she did not know she had, with her counsel moving to disqualify the arbitrator well within the 15 days required to object after receiving the AAA case manager’s letter finally disclosing everything. So, the rivers of justice in this one swept the arbitration award down the river and out to sea so that an arbitration can take place before an arbitrator making all required disclosures. Honeycutt also was awarded her costs on appeal.
Arbitration: Sanctions: N.D. Cal. District Judge Has Decided To Issue Sanctions Against Fitbit And Its Attorneys For Failure To Pursue Arbitration After Compelling It In Consumer Action
Moral Here Is To Pursue Arbitration If You Elect To Do So.
Mike Hensley, my co-contributor on the calattorneysfees.com website, has done a recent post about N.D. Cal. U.S. District James Donato’s July 24, 2018 order in which he will be imposing yet-to-be-sought sanctions against Fitbit and its defense counsel in a consumer action. District Judge Donato decided that the defense conduct in compelling arbitration and then announcing a decision not to pursue it justified “inherent by the court” sanctions to control bad-faith litigation conduct. Mike’s full post tells it all, including the district court’s colorful passage indicating why many people, including judges, are skeptical about arbitration agreements.
Arbitration: Burden Of Proof, FAA: Ninth Circuit Determines That USC Employment Arbitration Clause Did Not Encompass Plaintiff Employees’ Claims On Behalf Of ERISA Plans
However, Ninth Circuit Panel Did Indicate In A Footnote That It Might Have Been Wrong To Say Certain ERISA Claims Inarbitrable As A Matter Of Law.
In Munro v. University of Southern California (USC), No. 17-55550 (9th Cir. July 24, 2018) (published) (Thomas, Chief Judge, author; Friedland, Circuit Judge; and Zilly, W.D. Wash. District Judge by designation) confronted a situation where USC required current and former employees to sign standard employment contracts with arbitration clauses. However, the language only covered them in individual capacities such that the controversy here was whether these arbitration clauses covered employees bringing collective claims for breach of fiduciary duty against USC for the administration of certain ERISA plans. The district judge denied USC’s motion to compel arbitration after concluding that it did not encompass the ERISA plan challenges brought by the employees.
The Ninth Circuit agreed in a 3-0 panel opinion.
The summit issue under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was whether the employment contract’s arbitration clause encompassed the dispute at issue. Employees won on that issue.
Earlier, in U.S. ex rel. Welsh v. My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC, 871 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2017), decided under a similar employment contract that an arbitration clause did not cover qui tam claims brought by an employee on behalf of the U.S. government under the False Claims Act (FCA). The Ninth Circuit, in Munro, found that Welch’s reasoning did apply, because qui tam suits under the FCA—where a plaintiff sues for injury to the government—was akin to ERISA fiduciary breach suits—where a plaintiff sues for injury to the ERISA Plan. Beyond that, neither a plaintiff in an FCA suit nor a plaintiff in a similar ERISA suit can alone settle the suit. So, the USC arbitration clause was not broad enough to encompass “representative” claims of the nature alleged under ERISA.
However, not everything was lost from the defense perspective. In a footnote, the Ninth Circuit panel did hint quite strongly that its earlier holding in Amaro v. Continental Can Co., 724 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1987) might have been wrongly decided. Amaro found that ERISA 409(a) claims are inarbitrable, but the Ninth Circuit panel suggested this conclusion might have been wrong as a matter of law based on intervening binding authority—but did not have to reach the issue based on its narrower holding.
BLAWG OBSERVATION—I noticed that Eugene Scalia was on the losing side of the arbitration issue. Given his deceased father’s (former SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia's) views favoring arbitration and his pronouncements in Concepcion/other cases, his father might be rolling in his grave based on the result in this case, circumspect as it might be.
Review: Creative Mediation Solutions
Mediator Paul Fisher's Article Describing Varieties of Mediation Is Available On-Line.
A classic summary of "Creative Mediation Options" (August 2000) authored by California mediator Paul Fisher is available on-line at this link. Paul Fisher describes, and summarizes advantages and disadvantages of: baseball mediation, golf mediation, pocket golf mediation, binding mediation [perhaps an oxymoron], high-low mediation, mediation/arbitration, arbitration/mediation, and mini-trial.
Legislation: Gov. Brown Approves Senate Bill 766, Expanding Opportunities For International Arbitration
Members In Good Standing With Legal Profession In Foreign Country Will Be Able To Represent Client In California Arbitration.
On July 18, 2018, Gov. Brown approved Senate Bill 766. The new law will allow members in good standing in the legal profession in a foreign country to represent their client in California arbitrations and mediations. This solves a problem created by California Business and Professions Code, Section 6125, which provides: "No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar." The text of SB 766 is available here. The new law should open up opportunities for conducting more international arbitrations in California.