We’re pleased to share a recent win secured by partner, Lara Weems Rezapour and associate, Elizabeth Grindell that offers helpful guidance on waiver and timing in arbitration cases. In this matter, the court granted our motion to compel arbitration and stayed the litigation, finding that our client had not waived its right to arbitrate. Before the arbitration agreement was produced, the case involved only limited early litigation activity, including a procedural motion to dismiss, initial disclosures, responses to requests for admissions, and service of written discovery. At that stage, our client had not yet received the contract giving rise to arbitration. Approximately two months into the litigation, the plaintiff produced a contract executed with a third party that expressly conferred arbitration rights and extended those rights to our client, even though our client was not a signatory. Upon receipt of the contract, we promptly withdrew pending filings and moved to compel arbitration. The court found this response appropriate and timely. The plaintiff argued that waiver had occurred because the client was generally aware that arbitration provisions are commonly used in similar, unrelated matters involving gig economy relationships. The court rejected that argument and agreed with our position that actual notice is required, and notice sufficient to trigger arbitration rights does not arise until the specific contract at issue is produced. Because the client was not a signatory and had no prior access to the agreement, the right to arbitrate had not been triggered earlier. Importantly, the order makes clear that general awareness of arbitration provisions in similar agreements does not constitute notice or waiver. This ruling provides valuable clarification for companies facing waiver arguments in cases where arbitration rights depend on contracts held by third parties.
