|
A Minnesota federal court denied a party's request to "clarify" an order compelling arbitration after the AAA denied a request for class arbitration, finding that it did not have jurisdiction.
In E&M Motels, Inc. v. Super 8 Motels, Inc., slip copy, No. CIV 05-234 MJD/RLE, 2006 WL 3610816 (D. Minn. Dec. 11, 2006), E&M Motels' suit was removed to federal court and Super 8 moved to compel arbitration. The Court granted its motion.
Pursuant to the order to compel arbitration, E&M filed a demand with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) for class arbitration. Its demand was denied due to the language of the arbitration agreement, which prohibited "consolidation and joinder of claims."
E&M then moved for clarification of the Court's previous order, requesting an order "which specifically provides that its previous [o]rder compelled arbitration of all claims, including its class claims."
The Court concluded that the order needed no clarification and that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) bars this Court from interfering with the arbitration proceeding. The action was not certified as a class action before it was dismissed. The AAA denied the demand due to AAA policy and pursuant to the arbitration agreement between the parties.
"The Court's jurisdiction is limited to enforcing an arbitration agreement as written." See 9 U.S.C. § 4. This Court did not have jurisdiction to consider the request for clarification and the motion was denied.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|