Arbitration clauses are the fashion now. We are frequently reminded that parties save time and money through the arbitration alternative to litigation. It is not without irony, then, that arbitration clauses have engendered plenty of old-fashioned litigation. Two recent Pennsylvania federal court decisions deal with the enforceability of arbitration clauses, and both decisions foretell of added litigation in the arbitration arena.
The two cases, Crumpler v. Midland Credit Management, No. 13-1953 (Dec. 13, 2013), and Porreca v. The Rose Group, No. 13-1674 (Dec. 11, 2013), come out of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. They both decide motions to compel arbitration, and they demonstrate that such motions will often require discovery, and perhaps trial, to be resolved. Contrary to the intent and spirit of arbitration clauses, enforcing an arbitration clause is not always easy. Ironically, such clauses seem to foment litigation in the name of avoiding it.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
