Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

California Federal Court Rejects Request to Disqualify JAMS from Conducting Arbitration
Posted in Arbitration

A federal court in California rejected City Beverages’ request to disqualify JAMS from arbitrating its contractual dispute with Monster Energy. Monster Energy Co. v. City Beverages, LLC, 2021 WL 650275 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2021). In arbitration conducted by JAMS, City Beverages (d/b/a Olympic Eagle Distributing) challenged the validity of Monster’s termination of a distribution agreement under Washington’s franchise law. The arbitrator found the franchise law inapplicable, found the termination was valid, and awarded Monster $3 million in attorneys’ fees. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the award based on the arbitrator’s failure to disclose his ownership interest in JAMS given JAMS had administered 97 arbitrations for Monster over the past five years. On remand, Olympic then sought to disqualify JAMS from conducting the arbitration altogether.

In its motion to compel arbitration before an alternative arbitration organization, Olympic contended the submission by JAMS of amicus briefs before the Ninth Circuit in support of Monster “created reasonable doubt about its partiality” and argued, therefore, that the contractual provision requiring arbitration be administered by JAMS was unconscionable. The district court rejected this conclusion as the briefs submitted by JAMS did not address the underlying dispute between Olympic and Monster; rather, they addressed the Ninth Circuit’s understanding of arbitration disclosure requirements. The court found no reason to take the “drastic step of disqualifying every single JAMS arbitrator,” and concluded JAMS has sufficient safeguards in place to maintain an impartial forum.

Email LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.

About this Publication

The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP. 

To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here

Topics

Archives

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Blog Authors