About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (July 2020 - April 2021)

handle is hein.ali/aliuslaw0023 and id is 1 raw text is: THE U.S. LAW OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL AND INVESTOR-STATE ARBITRATION (DRAFTS) CHAPTER 2. ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT TOPIC 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS § 2.8. Competence of the Tribunal to Determine its Own Jurisdiction C.A.6, 2020. Cit. in sup. (citing Prop. Final Draft, 2019). Former employee, among others, filed a putative class action against employer, alleging that defendant, as the owner of a pizzeria franchise, violated federal antitrust law and state law by requiring its franchisee to terminate plaintiff before he could begin work at a different franchisee. The district court granted defendant's motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties' arbitration agreement, which stated that the American Arbitration Association (Association) would administrate the arbitration in accordance with Association rules, under which the Association had the exclusive authority to determine arbitrability questions. This court affirmed, holding that the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate gateway questions of arbitrability. The court noted that, while Association's exclusive-authority rule appeared to be similar to the competence-competence clause set forth in Restatement of The U.S. Law of International Commercial and Investor-State Arbitration § 2.8-which described an arbitral tribunal's ability to rule on issues of existence, validity, or scope of the arbitration agreement but did not provide for the tribunal's exclusive authority over those issues-it appeared the Association adopted its rule in order to provide clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to submit questions of arbitrability to arbitration. Blanton v. Domino's Pizza Franchising LLC, 962 F.3d 842, 849. TOPIC 2. DEFENSES TO ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT § 2.13. Arbitration Agreement Does Not Exist C.A.3, 2020. Cit. in sup.; coms. (c) and (d) cit. in sup. (citing § 2.12 and § 2.12, coms. (c) and (d), of T.D. No. 4, 2015). Employer that hired workers from a local labor union brought an action against union's benefits fund, alleging that fraud in the execution voided the contract between union and plaintiff that incorporated collective-bargaining agreements, and the arbitration provisions encompassed in the collective-bargaining agreements were invalid against plaintiff. The district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiff's motion to enjoin arbitration. This court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that the questions of whether an arbitration agreement existed was subject to de novo COPYRIGHT ©2021 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.