Archive | Arbitration clause

RSS feed for this section

Global Client Solutions, LLC v. Ossello

Global Client Solutions, LLC v. Ossello, 2016 MT 50 (March 2, 2016) (McGrath C.J.; Wheat, J., concurring; McKinnon, J., dissenting) (5-2, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in reserving to itself the determination of arbitrability; and (2) whether the district court erred in determining that the arbitration provision was unconscionable and therefore not enforceable.

Short Answer: (1) No; and (2) no.

Denial of motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration affirmed

Facts: Ossello had more than $40,000 in unsecured debt in 2012 when she received an unsolicited mailing from World Law, advertising that it could provide debt relief services. Ossello called and spoke to a sale agent. Ossello and the agent reviewed several form agreements, which Ossello electronically signed, including a Client Services Agreement with World Law and a Dedicated Account Agreement (DAA) with Global Client Solutions.…

Montana Public Employees’ Assoc. (MPEA) v. City of Bozeman

Montana Public Employees’ Assoc. (MPEA) v. City of Bozeman, 2015 MT 69 (March 3, 2015) (Baker, J.) (5-0, rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court improperly decided an issue of procedural arbitrability; and (2) whether the dispute is substantively arbitrable.

Short Answer: Yes, and (2) yes.

Reversed and remanded

Facts: Following the employee grievance procedure in the collective bargaining agreement between MPEA and the city of Bozeman, MPEA gave timely notice in 2009 to the city of its decision to arbitrate the grievance of a terminated employee, Robert Chase. MPEA then failed to timely request a list of potential arbitrators from the Montana Board of Personnel Appeals. In June 2010, the city declined to participate in arbitration on the basis of that failure.…

Ensey v. Mini Mart, Inc.

Ensey v. Mini Mart, Inc., 2013 MT 94 (April 10, 2013) (5-0) (Wheat, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred by dismissing Ensey’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) whether the district court erred in finding that § 39-2-915, MCA does not violate Ensey’s constitutional rights.

Short Answer: (1) No, and (2) yes.

Affirmed issue 1, set aside issue 2