Franchise, Distribution & Dealer Law Section Meeting (SFR240319)

Arbitration Waiver in the Wake of Morgan v. Sundance

Speakers

Rachel Canna, Wiggin and Dana, New Haven
Jared Lincoln, Wiggin and Dana, New Haven
Samuel Agostini, Urso, Liguori & Micklich, Westerly, Rhode Island

Program Description

When a plaintiff initiates a court lawsuit against a defendant with whom it has an arbitration agreement, the defendant can seek to compel arbitration. But what happens when the defendant takes a long time to assert its arbitration rights? Traditionally, most federal courts held that whether a defendant waived its arbitration rights turned, in large part, on whether the plaintiff was prejudiced by the delay. This approach to waiver was unique to the arbitration context. But in Morgan v. Sundance (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this arbitration-specific waiver analysis, and explained that prejudice is not the relevant inquiry for a waiver analysis. So what constitutes waiver now?

Rachel Canna, Jared Lincoln, and Samuel Agostini will discuss their forthcoming article for the Franchise Law Journal concerning how the waiver analysis has changed in the nearly two years post-Morgan. This discussion will be of interest not just to franchise law practitioners, but to any lawyer who wants to learn about what parties should and should not do to preserve their arbitration rights.

CLE Credit

1.5 CT Credit (General) 

Cost

$40

Please be aware that photos/recordings may be taken during this event. By registering, and selecting "yes", you consent to the Connecticut Bar Association’s reuse of any image/recording captured at the event of yourself and/or your guests for use in publicity/advertising purposes.