3-Letter Word: Law Firm Partners Feud Over Contract Language
"Instead of using the phrase 'agree to' in the sentences about arbitration, the parties used 'may,'" two appellate judges wrote.
November 06, 2024 at 03:01 PM
4 minute read
A New Jersey appeals court has rejected an attorney's attempt to arbitrate her feud with a former law partner based on contract language stating that the parties "may submit the dispute to binding arbitration."
Maureen E. Vella was hit with a suit from ex-partner David J. Singer for breach of contract in August 2023 over her departure from Hillsborough's Vella, Singer & Associates.
Vella moved to dismiss the suit, claiming that "she never would have entered into an agreement" calling for her disputes with ex-partners "to be resolved in open court."
After a trial court denied Vella's motion to dismiss, Appellate Division Judges Maritza Berdote Byrne and Katie Gummer noted that an average person might not know that arbitration is a substitute for the right to have one's claim adjudicated in a court of law. But attorneys such as Vella and Singer "had the sophistication to understand the import of arbitration," the judges said.
'May'
To dismiss this case and compel arbitration, Vella does not have to establish the agreement contained "an express waiver of the parties' right to seek relief in a court of law," the appellate court found. But she still must demonstrate that the parties had a "meeting of the minds" in which they agreed to adopt a requirement to arbitrate.
"And that she cannot do based on the plain language of the agreement," Berdote Byrne and Gummer wrote.
The word "may" generally conveys that an action is permissive, not mandatory, the judges wrote.
The partnership agreement in question states that "[i]n the event of a dispute among the shareholders, the shareholder[s] agree to conduct good faith negotiations in order to settle the dispute." Next, it states "[i]f the dispute cannot be settled within 30 days, the shareholders agree to submit the dispute to mediation before a mutually-agreed upon mediator."
But in the rest of that section, the parties did not use the mandatory "agree to" phrase but instead used "may," the judges stated.
The agreement went on to say that "if mediation proves unsuccessful within 45 days of submission of the dispute, the shareholder may submit the dispute to binding arbitration before a mutually agreed upon arbitrator. If the parties cannot agree to a mediator/arbitrator, the dispute may be submitted to JAMS using the procedures outlined by JAMS."
Gummer and Berdote Byrne cited a 2019 Appellate Division ruling, Medford Township School District v. Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, in which a contract contained mandatory and permissive terms. In that case, the court found the arbitration clause was permissive and not mandatory.
"We reach the same conclusion here. Instead of using the phrase 'agree to' in the sentences about arbitration, the parties used 'may.' Had they intended to require submission of the dispute to binding arbitration after a failed mediation, they could have and should have explicitly stated so by using 'shall' or even continuing to use the phrase 'agree to,'" Gummer and Berdote Byrne wrote.
"But they didn't. Instead, they used the word 'may.' The plain language of the agreement convinces us arbitration was permissive and not mandatory," the judges wrote.
According to the suit, Vella and Singer each owned 50% of the firm and were equally responsible for its debts, according to its October 2019 contract.
But Vella allegedly failed to pay her share of the firm's debt after resigning, according to the suit.
Vella allegedly participated in "financial malfeasance" by preparing deceptive financial reports, altering financial data, making a record of fake shareholder meetings, misdirecting income due to making distributions to benefit only herself, and making misrepresentations to the firm's financial institutions and to the state, the filing claimed.
Kenneth Thyne of Simon Law Group in Somerville, representing Vella, said he was "disappointed" by the decision.
Thyne said the appeals court's interpretation made the contract language "meaningless."
"If you put in that you may institute arbitration, that means you're getting a contractual right that you didn't have before you sign the contract," Thyne said.
The lawyer for Singer, Somerville solo practitioner Brian M. Cige, said of the ruling, "I think every decision that clarifies whether someone can be compelled to arbitrate or not is important and helpful. Everybody's going to have different language in their contracts, but I think it reaffirms what cases don't have to be arbitrated."
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNJ Appellate Division Holds 'Clickwrap' Arbitration Provision Enforceable
5 minute read'That's Insane': Lawyers Weigh In on Fallout From Uber's User Agreement
7 minute readAppellate Division Rulings Remind Us That, Despite Arbitration's Informal Nature, There Are Rules
7 minute readAppellate Division Ruling on Uber Eats Contract Highlights Evolution of 'Holding the Pen' Concepts
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250