DRI Files Amicus Brief with U.S. Supreme Court

DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Winston & Strawn LLP’s petition for writ of certiorari in the case of Winston & Strawn LLP v. Constance Ramos. The brief was filed by DRI’s Center for Law and Public Policy.

 Arbitration is frequently a more efficient method of resolving disputes than resorting to the judicial system. Court dockets are often congested and getting to judgment can take years.  Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act in response to judicial hostility to arbitration and to require courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that state courts frequently apply the FAA, including the Act’s national policy favoring arbitration. It is therefore important that state courts adhere to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Act.

In this case, Constance Ramos, joined Winston’s San Francisco office as an income partner in 2014. Upon joining Winston, Ramos signed the firm’s partnership agreement which included an arbitration provision requiring any dispute relating to the agreement or partnership to be addressed first in non-binding mediation. If mediation failed, the agreement authorized either party to submit the dispute to binding arbitration. The partnership agreement also included a standard contract provision specifying that if any provision in the agreement were unenforceable, the remainder of the agreement was still enforceable.

In July 2017, Ramos resigned. The next month, Ramos sued Winston without first attempting to mediate or arbitrate her claims. Winston moved to compel arbitration. The California courts refused to enforce the parties’ agreement to arbitrate their disputes because California law imposed various requirements on arbitration agreements that the arbitration agreement in question did not meet. The California courts held that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable, and refused to enforce those parts of the arbitration agreement that did comply with California law separately. Although the California courts applied general contract-law principles, they did so in a way contrary to decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court.

DRI’s amicus brief argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should accept Winston’s case to rebuff the California courts’ continued and persistent efforts to resist the clear mandates of the FAA. The brief traces the history of California courts’ failure to follow the FAA, a trend that continues to this day. Specifically, the brief points out that, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s clear holding in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion that the California courts cannot apply heightened standards to arbitration agreements, the California courts have continued to do so.  By doing so, the California courts refuse to give the FAA the supremacy that the Constitution requires.
Brief co-authors Matt Nelson and Conor Dugan are with Warner Norcross & Judd LLP in Grand Rapids.