Crónica de jurisprudencia americana
| Autor | Michael T. Greene |
| Cargo | Willamette University, College of Law. Center for Dispute Resolution |
| Páginas | 156-156 |
R
R
Re
e
ev
v
vi
i
is
s
st
t
ta
a
a
L
L
La
a
at
t
ti
i
in
n
no
o
oa
a
am
m
me
e
er
r
ri
i
ic
c
ca
a
an
n
na
a
a
d
d
de
e
e
M
M
Me
e
ed
d
di
i
ia
a
ac
c
ci
i
ió
ó
ón
n
n
y
y
y
A
A
Ar
r
rb
b
bi
i
it
t
tr
r
ra
a
aj
j
je
e
e,
,,
2
2
20
0
00
0
03
3
3,
,,
N
N
Nú
ú
úm
m
me
e
er
r
ro
o
o
2
2
2
156
Column of U.S. Case Law
Michael T. Greene, USA#
Willamette University, College of Law
Center for Dispute Resolution
Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, U.S., L.L.C. v. Nackel, (2nd Cir. Oct. 14, 2003).
John Nackel (Nackel) sued Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, U.S., L.L.C. (Cap Gemini) under California
state law, alleging claims of discrimination and wrongful termination. Relying on the parties’
employment agreement containing an arbitration clause and a New York choice-of-law provision, Cap
Gemini successfully moved in the Southern District of New York to compel arbitration. Finding that
the lower court did not reject Nackel’s contention—that California and New York law could yield
different outcomes as to the validity of the arbitration agreement—the United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit held that the lower court should have established that Cap Gemini’s “presence” in
New York was sufficient to warrant application of New York law to the subject dispute. The court
noted that “although, ‘New York courts generally defer to the choice of law made by the parties to a
contract . . . New York law allows a court to disregard the parties’ choice when ‘the most significant
contacts’ with the matter in dispute are in another state.’” (Citations omitted). Because Nackel
resided in California, worked out of Cap Gemini’s Los Angeles office, asserted claims under
California law, and because all the events underlying his claims occurred in California, the court
remanded for settlement of the choice-of-law issue and reassessment of the validity of the arbitration
agreement. (DD)
Full opinion available online at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/029447p.pdf
Will-Drill Resources, Inc. v. Samson Resources Co.,(5th Cir., Nov. 26, 2003).
Will-Drill Resources, Inc. (Will-Drill) offered leases for sale on mineral deposits and Samson
Resources Co. (Samson) was interested in purchasing the properties. Samson presented Will-Drill
with a Proposed Sale Agreement (PSA) that Samson would buy all of the properties represented by
Will-Drill. Later, Will-Drill informed Samson that some of the sellers had decided not to sell.
Samson rejected Will-Drill’s substitution of new sellers and withdrew the PSA. Will-Drill and
several of the sellers brought suit against Samson. Will-Drill later amended the complaint to invoke
the arbitration provisions in the PSA. In district court, the judge compelled arbitration. Samson
appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on grounds that no agreement was reached between the
parties. Samson reasoned that the PSA was an offer to purchase all of the property--an offer which
was rejected when less than all of the sellers signed the PSA. The court of appeals reasoned that the
district court erred in applying the doctrine of separability because Samson’s argument attacked the
agreement generally, rather than the arbitration clause specifically. When a party attacks the very
existence of a contract, it is for the court to decide whether a contract exists before an arbitrator may
hear the underlying dispute. (AL)
Full opinion available online at:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/02/02-31185-cv0.pdf
# Excerpt from Recent Developments in Dispute Resolution. Editor-in-Chief: Michael T. Greene; Writers:
Dawn Douglas, Diane Gould, Cayce Falck & Ann Ledgerwood; Faculty Advisor: Richard Birke. Dis-res
mailing list: Dis-res@willamette.edu http://lists.willamette.edu/mailman/listinfo/dis-res
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba