Get Adobe Flash player
Our News by Month

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted a “presumption of arbitration capacity” that claims for forced settlement should be granted unless it can be said with “positive certainty” that the arbitration clause in question is not subject to an interpretation that covers the dispute being invoked. See Battaglia v. McKendry, 233 F.3d 720, 725 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Lincoln Univ. of Com). Sys. Of Higher Ed. V. Lincoln Univ. Chapter of Am.

Professor, 354 A.2d 576, 581-82 (Pa. 1976)). The presumption of arbitration capacity “applies in particular where the arbitration clause at issue is broad”. In Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., 716 F.3d 764, 767 (3d Cir. 2013), the U.S. Court of Rights for the Third Circuit clarified “the standards applicable to enforcement arbitration claims and established the circumstances in which district courts should apply the standard for a dismissal claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and those in which they should apply the standard of summary judgment found in Rule 56.” “While it is obvious, on the basis of the `face of a claim and the documents cited in the appeal`, that certain claims of a party `are subject to an enforceable arbitration clause,` a claim for forced settlement under a standard of Rule 12(b)(6) must be considered without delay of discovery.” Id. at 776 (cited by Somerset Consulting, LLC v.

United Capital Lenders, LLC, 832 F. Supp. 2d 474, 482 (E.D. Pa. 2011)). But “if the claim and its supporting documents regarding the arbitration agreement are unclear or if the claimant has responded to a request for arbitration coercion with additional facts sufficient to challenge the arbitration agreement, then `the parties should be entitled to the discovery of the issue of arbitration capacity before a court no longer needs it.` Id. (cites Somerset Consulting, 832 F. Supp. 2d to 482). In this regard, Kauffman argues that the eMove agreement is procedurally unscrupulous for four reasons: (1) eMove is in a better negotiating position than Kauffman, “which is undifferentiated and has only one EDM”; (2) The Agreement was drawn up entirely by eMove; (3) “The consequences of the arbitration clause were not explained [to Kauffman] when it was signed”; and (4) he “had no choice but to accept the terms of the eMove agreement if he wanted to work as a mover for eMove”. Pl.`s Mem.

Opp`n 25. The defendants complained that at the time of acceptance of the agreement, Kauffman was a successful mover who had worked for eMove for several years and who, as shown by his communication with other movers on an online eMove message card, had read and understood the agreement. Furthermore, there is no indication that Kauffman could not have used his services otherwise. Finally, they point out that the agreement contains a provision that allows Kauffman to change its terms with the eMove agreement, that the arbitration clause is the same size as the rest of the agreement, and that when Kauffman eMove asked questions about the agreement, the company responded. . . .