Journal of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회지:중재연구)

The Korean Association of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Language of Arbitration Agreements and Availability of Class Arbitration: Focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court's Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela Decision

  • Received : 2021.08.14
  • Accepted : 2021.08.31
  • Published : 2021.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism based on the parties' agreement to resolve any disputes parties may have by arbitration rather than litigation in court. Parties' consent to arbitrate, which must be manifest in the parties' arbitration clause or agreement, is the foundation for arbitration; thus, the language of an arbitration agreement is often of utmost importance in determining the intent of the parties regarding many aspects of arbitration proceedings, such as, the scope of arbitral proceedings, arbitral seat, and authority of arbitral tribunals, among others. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) that ambiguity in arbitration agreement as to availability of class arbitration should be resolved in favor of individual arbitration, and therefore, class arbitration would be precluded. Such holding was met with criticism by four separate dissenting opinions, in which the dissenting Justices have disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the arbitration agreement at issue, as well as, its rejection of application of state law in resolving contractual ambiguity. This article analyzes the Supreme Court's decision and reviews the Court's approach in construction of the arbitration agreement. Nevertheless, because the Supreme Court declined to provide clear guidelines as to precisely what contractual basis is required to permit class arbitration, either silence or ambiguity in arbitration agreements will be resolved by disallowing class arbitration.

Keywords

References

  1. Blavi, Franciso and Vial, Gonzalo, "Class Actions in International Commercial Arbitration," Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 39 (2016).
  2. Horton, David, "Clause Construction: A Glimpse into Judicial and Arbitral Decision-Making," Duke Law Journal, Vol. 68 (2019).
  3. Lipshutz, Joshua S., "The Court's Implicit Roadmap: Charting the Prudent Course at the Juncture of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements and Class Action Lawsuits," Standford Law Review, Vol. 57 (2005).
  4. Niworowski, Joanna, "Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela: Dark Times Ahead for Class Arbitration," University of Miami Law Review, Vol 75 (2020).
  5. Sternlight, Jean R., "As Mandatory Binding Arbitration Meets the Class Action, Will the Class Action Survive?" William and Mary Law Review, Vol. 42 (2000).
  6. Strong, S. I., "The Sounds of Silence: Are U.S. Arbitrators Creating Internationally Enforceable Awards When Ordering Class Arbitration in Cases of Contractual Silence or Ambiguity?" Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 30 (2009).
  7. Szalai, Imre S., "The Supreme Court's Lamps Plus Arbitration Decision: A Fading Light for Class Actions," Harvard Negotiation Law Review, Vol. 25, Iss. 1 (2019).
  8. Weston, Maureen A., "Universes Colliding: The Constitutional Implications of Arbitral Class Actions," William and Mary Law Review, Vol. 47 (2006).
  9. Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1407, 203 L. Ed. 2d 636 (2019).
  10. Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 133 S. Ct. 2064, 186 L. Ed. 2d 113 (2013).
  11. Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 130 S. Ct. 1758, 176 L. Ed. 2d 605 (2010).
  12. Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc., No. CV-16-577-DMG-KSx, 2016 Lexis U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189521 (July 7, 2016).
  13. Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 701 Fed. Appx. 670 (9th Cir. 2017).