|
A federal court in Mississippi refused to sever the claims of putative class members who signed arbitration agreements from those who did not when the class had yet to be certified and the court did not have jurisdiction over the claims of the named plaintiff because he signed an arbitration agreement.
In Glass v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., 3:05CV145-B-A, 2007 WL 837241 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 15, 2007), Glass sought declarative and monetary relief for alleged inhumane treatment of nursing home residents of Beverly Enterprises (BEI).
Glass alleged the existence of a putative class of residents and former residents who have suffered the same harm. When BEI brought a motion to compel arbitration, Glass asked the court to sever the claims of putative class members who agreed to arbitrate from those who did not.
In granting BEI's motion to compel arbitration, the Court noted that Glass conceded to signing a valid arbitration agreement.
Additionally, the Court noted that "[its] ability to entertain the class action is . . . contingent on its ability to assert jurisdiction over the claims of the named plaintiff(s)," Naguin v. Nokia Mobile Phones, Inc., No. Civ. A. 00-2023, 2000 WL 33593205 (E.D. La. Nov. 8, 2000). Since the class had not been certified, and because the Court did not have jurisdiction over Glass because of his agreement to arbitrate, the Court refused to grant Glass's request to sever claims.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|