
Joel N. Kreizman
Partner
732-568-8363 jkreizman@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Joel N. Kreizman
Date: March 29, 2017
Partner
732-568-8363 jkreizman@sh-law.comNew Jersey businesses better pay their arbitration bills. In a precedential decision, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the failure to pay arbitration fees constitutes a material breach of contract and precludes the enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate.
Arbitration agreements are generally governed by traditional principles of contract law. Accordingly, if one party breaches a material term of an agreement, the other party is relieved of its obligations under the agreement. In Tahisha Roach v. BM Motoring, LLC, the New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether the failure to advance arbitration fees is a material breach of an agreement to arbitrate.
Plaintiffs Emelia Jackson and Tahisha Roach signed dispute resolution agreements (DRA) when they purchased used cars from BM Motoring, LLC, and Federal Auto Brokers, Inc., doing business as BM Motor Cars (collectively, BM). The identical DRAs required resolution of disputes through arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association before a retired judge or an attorney. The plaintiffs filed separate demands for arbitration against BM with the AAA, asserting claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). Despite repeated requests by the AAA, BM did not advance the filing fees that the DRA obligated it to pay or otherwise respond to the claim.
When the plaintiffs ultimately filed suit, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in favor of arbitration. In support, they argued that they did not contemplate using the AAA as the forum for arbitration, and consistently had not arbitrated customer disputes before the AAA due to the excessive filing and administrative fees that the AAA charged. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs alleged that defendants materially breached the DRA by failing to advance filing and arbitration fees, and waived their right to arbitration.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey sided with the plaintiffs. “Defendants’ non-payment of filing and arbitration fees amounted to a material breach of the DRA,” the court held. “Defendants are therefore precluded from enforcing the arbitration provision, and the case will proceed in the courts.”
As a foundational matter, the court held that “the filing of an arbitration claim with the AAA is not inconsistent with the DRA’s requirement of arbitrating before a single retired judge or attorney,” noting that the DRA requires the parties to arbitrate in accordance with the rules of the AAA. The court further highlighted that a commercial arbitration rule of the AAA provides that parties who agree to arbitrate in accordance with AAA rules thereby consent to AAA-administered arbitration.
With regard to the defendants’ failure to pay the required AAA fees, the court held it constitutes a material breach of the arbitration agreement. In reaching its decision, the court noted that the Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeals both have also held that a party’s failure to pay required fees constitutes a material breach of an arbitration agreement. It further explained:
The benefit expected under an arbitration agreement is the ability to arbitrate claims. A failure to advance required fees that result in the dismissal of the arbitration claim deprives a party of the benefit of the agreement. Therefore, the failure to advance fees “goes to the essence” of the DRA and amounts to a material breach.
Notably, the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to establish a bright-line rule for determining whether a refusal or failure to respond to a written arbitration demand, within a reasonable time, constitutes a material breach of an arbitration agreement that precludes its enforcement. “Such determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis, after consideration of the terms of the agreement and conduct of the parties,” the court stated.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
Author: Dan Brecher
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
Special purpose acquisition companies (better known as SPACs) appear to be making a comeback. SPAC offerings for 2025 have already nearly surpassed last year’s totals, with additional transactions in the pipeline. SPACs last experienced a boom between 2020–2021, with approximately 600 U.S. companies raising a record $163 billion in 2021. Notable companies that went public […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Merging two companies is a complex legal and business transaction. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process that involves important corporate governance considerations. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process. However, […]
Author: Dan Brecher
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!