()

District Judge Alison J. Nathan

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Plaintiffs Clarke and Peterson were executive of marketing services firm CHR Group. In 2015 CHR’s subsidiary Studio One Networks Inc. contracted with Upwork Global, and bought one year of its premium Upwork Enterprise and Enterprise Billing services. Peterson and Clarke registered as users of Studio One’s account with Upwork. Based on provisions in its User Agreement Upwork demanded arbitration against Studio One, CHR, Clarke, and Peterson on claims including contract breach, conversion, and promissory fraud. The court denied Clarke and Peterson injunctive relief barring Upwork’s prosecution of claims in arbitration. They claimed they could not be compelled to arbitrate because they were not parties—in their individual capacities—to any contractual agreement to arbitrate. The court found that by participating in, and expressly declining to object to, the arbitration, Clarke and Peterson waived their rights to object to proceeding with the arbitration. Having at least implicitly agreed to arbitrate Upwork’s claims against them, and having waived their rights to object to proceeding with the subject arbitration, plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that they could not be compelled to arbitrate.

District Judge Alison J. Nathan

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Plaintiffs Clarke and Peterson were executive of marketing services firm CHR Group. In 2015 CHR’s subsidiary Studio One Networks Inc. contracted with Upwork Global, and bought one year of its premium Upwork Enterprise and Enterprise Billing services. Peterson and Clarke registered as users of Studio One’s account with Upwork. Based on provisions in its User Agreement Upwork demanded arbitration against Studio One, CHR, Clarke, and Peterson on claims including contract breach, conversion, and promissory fraud. The court denied Clarke and Peterson injunctive relief barring Upwork’s prosecution of claims in arbitration. They claimed they could not be compelled to arbitrate because they were not parties—in their individual capacities—to any contractual agreement to arbitrate. The court found that by participating in, and expressly declining to object to, the arbitration, Clarke and Peterson waived their rights to object to proceeding with the arbitration. Having at least implicitly agreed to arbitrate Upwork’s claims against them, and having waived their rights to object to proceeding with the subject arbitration, plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that they could not be compelled to arbitrate.