ARTICLE
21 March 2018

Seventh Circuit Reverses Order Compelling Arbitration Of Dispute Between Two Non-Signatories To Arbitration Agreement

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that state law governs whether a contract's arbitration clause is binding on non-signatories.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that state law governs whether a contract's arbitration clause is binding on non-signatories. The dispute arises from a consumer protection action filed by the plaintiff in response to a spam text message he received promoting a Subway sandwich. Subway sought to compel arbitration of the action based on the arbitration clause in two cellphone contracts between T-Mobile and plaintiff's mother. Although plaintiff was an authorized user under his mother's account, plaintiff never signed and was not otherwise a party to the T-Mobile agreements. Applying federal law, the district court dismissed plaintiff's action and compelled arbitration based on principles of equitable estoppel. The Seventh Circuit reversed, however, finding that state law estoppel applied and that Subway could not prove that it detrimentally relied on plaintiff's statements or conduct as it relates to the T-Mobile arbitration clauses.

Warciak v. Subway Restaurants, Inc. , No. 17-CV-01956 (7th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More