|
According to the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, a party's failure to properly introduce an arbitration agreement into evidence prior to a dilatory exception of prematurity meant that the pleading party could not demonstrate the existence of a valid contract to arbitrate.
In Succession of Bijeaux v. Broyles, No. 06-1172, 2007 WL 397190 (La. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2007), Citigroup, a successor to Smith Barney, Inc., sought to compel arbitration of petitioner Achille Bijeaux's claims that Smith Barney employees fraudulently purchased annuities with funds from his account. Bijeaux was deceased. In Louisiana civil-law terms, the procedural posture of this motion to compel is known as a "dilatory exception of prematurity," which seeks to slow the progress of a lawsuit, but does not necessarily aim to defeat it on the merits.
The Court denied Citigroup's motion to compel arbitration, citing the lack of a valid contract to arbitrate. Citigroup countered that the arbitration agreement had been attached to the motion itself. In Louisiana, however, merely attaching documents to pre-hearing memoranda does not qualify as introducing the documents into evidence. The documents must be properly introduced. Abshire v. Belmont Homes, Inc., 896 So.2d 277, 280 (La. Ct. App. 2005). Since Citigroup had not properly introduced the arbitration agreement, the trial court had not erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|