Arbitration & Mediation

Amending Complaint/Claims Will Not Afford New Hearing to Dispute Arbitration or Limitation Clauses

By Christopher B. Hopkins, Esq.

Amending Complaint/Claims Will Not Afford New Hearing to Dispute Arbitration or Limitation Clauses

A recent case from the Third District includes some hazy, if not heady, arbitration issues involving class action waiver and unconscionable liability limitations. The Panel, however, safely dodged stepping into those issues by holding that challenges to arbitrability should be “resolved at the outset [of the case] and, presumably, once.”

In the case of Eventys Marketing and Products, Inc. v. Comcast Spotlight, Inc., the parties disputed rights and obligations in a tv advertising contract which also included an arbitration agreement, limitation of remedies, and waiver of the right to bring consolidated or class action claims.

At first, the suit involved a single breach of contract claim. At the hearing, the Plaintiff did not dispute the agreement as unconscionable or against public policy. However, as the case progressed, the Plaintiff added a FDUPTA claim and class action claim and then disputed the contract provisions.

The court agreed with cases holding that the issue of arbitrability should be determinned at the threshold of a case and that artful pleading (addition of new claims) should not afford another bite at the apple. The court further held that these challenges could not be raised just because the Plaintiff amended the claim and now seeks to raise additional grounds to dispute arbitration.

For a similar overview from a class action perspective, see the Carlton Fields' blog.

Full post as published by Florida Arbitration Law on March 07, 2010 (boomark / email).