Defendant's standard brief in support of motion to stay pending arbitration (Federal Court)

[Style of Case]

"STOCK" BRIEF ADDRESSING MOTION TO STAY

AND ADHESION/UNCONSCIONABILITY ARGUMENTS

[Attorneys’ Names, Firm, Address]

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Table of Authorities...........................................

Table of Exhibits..............................................

Argument

1. FAA APPLIES TO CONTRACT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF

   AND DEFENDANTS............................................

   A. The Issue: Section 1 of FAA...............................

   B. Legislative History Proves Section 1 Exemption

   Applies Only to Transportation Industry

   Workers.........................................

   C. Case law Indicates Section 1 Exemption Applies

   Only to Transportation Industry Workers.........

2. FAA CLEARLY REQUIRES ARBITRATION OF PLAINTIFF'S

   CLAIMS....................................................

   A. FAA Applies to Employment Disputes....................

   B. FAA Applies to Statutory Cause of Action..............

   C. The Arbitration Clause in this Case is

   Broad................................................

3. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS OF ADHESION, FRAUDULENT

   INDUCEMENT, COERCION AND RESCISSION ARE SUBJECT

   TO ARBITRATION............................................

4. PLAINTIFF IS ESTOPPED FROM SEEKING RESCISSION.............

5. ON THE MERITS, PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS OF ADHESION, ETC.

   HAVE NO VALIDITY..........................................

   A. The Texas Standard for Unconscionability/Adhesion....

   B. Plaintiff Has Failed to Prove Unconscionability......

   1. Plaintiff Has Failed to Prove Lack of a

      Meaningful Choice...............................

   2. Plaintiff Has Failed to Prove Contract

      is Oppressive...................................

      C. Plaintiff's Affidavit Proves that the Arbitration

      Clause Was Not Unconscionable, Fraudulent, Etc.......

6. CONCLUSION................................................

   Certificate of Service.........................................

   INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

   CASE LAW PAGE NO.

   Alexander v. Gardner Denver,

   415 U.S. 36 n.6 (1974)..................................

   Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,

   939 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1991)............................

   Allright, Inc. v. Elledge,

   515 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1974)..............................

   Bacashihua v. United States Postal Service,

   859 F.2d 402 (6th Cir. 1988)............................

   Bhatia v. Johnston,

   818 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1987)............................

   Bitkowski v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

   866 F.2d 821 (6th Cir. 1987)............................

   Carpenter v. North River Ins. Co.,

   436 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Houston

   [14th Dist.] 1968, writ ref'd. n.r.e.)..................

   Cohen v. Wedbush, Noble, Cooke, Inc.,

   841 F.2d 282 (9th Cir. 1988)............................

   Dancu v. Coopers & Lybrand,

   778 F. Supp. 832 (E.D. Pa. 1991),

   aff'd, 972 F.2d 1330 (3rd Cir. 1992)....................

   Dickstein v. Dupont,

   443 F.2d 783 (1st Cir. 1971)............................

   Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Houston Lighting

   & Power Co.,

   646 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. App. -- Houston [1st Dist.]

   1982, no writ)..........................................

   Fredonia Broadcasting Corp., Inc. v. RCA Corp.,

   481 F.2d 781 (5th Cir. 1973)............................

   General Warehouse & Helpers v. Standard Brands,

   579 F.2d 1282 (5th Cir. 1978),

   cert. dismissed, 441 U.S. 957 (1979).....................

   Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.,

   111 S. Ct. 1647 (1991)..................................

   Higgins v. Superior Court, 234 Cal. App.3d 1464 (1991).......

   Hydrick v. Management Recruiters Int'l.,

   738 F. Supp. 1434 (N.D. Ga. 1990).......................

   Irving v. Virginia Squires Basketball Club,

   468 F.2d 1064 (2d Cir. 1972)...........................

   Johnson v. American Airlines,

   487 F. Supp. 1343 (N.D. Tex. 1980)...................

   Letizia v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.,

   802 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1986)...........................

   Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California Limited,

   593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979),

   cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979)........................

   Life of Am. Ins. Co. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,

   744 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1984) ...........................

   Lorence v. Comprehensive Business Services, Co.,

   833 F.2d 1159 (5th Cir. 1987)...........................

   Mallison v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.,

   654 F. Supp. 101 (E.D. Mich. 1987)........................

   Mar-Len of Louisiana, Inc. v. Parsons-Gilbane,

   773 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1985)............................

   Matterhorn, Inc. v. NCR Corp.,

   763 F.2d 866 (7th Cir. 1985)............................

   Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Haydu,

   637 F.2d 391 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981)............................

   Miller Brewing v. Brewery Workers Local U. No. 9,

   739 F.2d 1159 (7th Cir. 1984),

   cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1160 (1985)......................

   Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Solar Chrysler Plymouth,

   473 U.S. 614 (1985).....................................

   Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury

   Construction Corp.,

   460 U.S. 1 (1983).......................................

   Neal v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc.,

   918 F.2d 34 (5th Cir. 1990).............................

   Pietro Scalzitti Co. v. Int'l Union of

   Operating Engineers, Local 150,

   351 F.2d 576 (7th Cir. 1965)............................

   Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,

   388 U.S. 395 (1967).....................................

   Rhoades v. Powell,

   644 F.Supp. 645 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd, 961 F.2d

   217 (9th Cir. 1992).....................................

   R.M. Perez & Associates, Inc. v. Welch,

   960 F.2d 534 (5th Cir. 1992)............................

   Sacks v. Richardson Green Shield Securities, Inc.,

   781 F. Supp. 1475 (E.D. Cal. 1991)......................

   Schacht v. Beacon Ins. Co.,

   742 F.2d 386 (7th Cir. 1984)............................

   Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Tucker,

   806 S.W.2d 914 (Tex. App. -- Corpus Christi,

   1991, writ dism'd w.o.j.) ..............................

   Signal-Stat Corp. v. Local 475,

   United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers,

   235 F.2d 298 (2d Cir. 1956),

   cert. denied, 354 U.S. 911 (1957)........................

   Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. DeLanney,

   809 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. 1991)..............................

   Surman v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

   733 F.2d 59 (8th Cir. 1984).............................

   Tenney Engineering, Inc. v. United Elec.

   Radio & Machine Workers of America,

   207 F.2d 450 (3d Cir. 1953)............................

   Tullis v. Kohlmeyer & Company,

   551 F.2d 632 (5th Cir. 1977)............................

   Villa Garcia v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce,

   Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

   833 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1987)............................

   Wade v. Austin,

   524 S.W.2d 79 (Tex. Civ. App. --

   Texarkana 1979, no writ)................................

   Wylie Independent School District v.

   TMC Foundations, Inc.,

   770 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. App. --

   Dallas 1989, writ dism'd.)..............................

   STATUTES

   9 U.S.C. § 1 (1970)

   OTHER AUTHORITY

   None.

   TABLE OF EXHIBITS

   A. Affidavit of ____________________

   B. Affidavit of ____________________

   C. Affidavit of ____________________

   D. Affidavit of ____________________

   [Style of Case]

   "STOCK" BRIEF ADDRESSING MOTION TO STAY

   AND ADHESION/UNCONSCIONABILITY ARGUMENTS

   I. FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT APPLIES TO CONTRACT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS

   A. The Issue: Section 1 of FAA

   Plaintiff claims that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") does not apply to the employment agreements at issue. Without citing any authority directly on point, Plaintiff claims that since [he/she] was involved in the interstate movement of money and _____, that the Plaintiff is somehow part of a "class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." This reasoning ignores the clear import of the FAA language, the legislative history of the FAA, and numerous circuit court cases directly on point.

   The language of section 1 of the FAA states:

   But nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railway employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.

   9 U.S.C. § 1 (emphasis added). Plaintiff argues that [his/her] work involved interstate commerce and therefore the § 1 exemption means the FAA does not apply to[ him/her]. The legislative history of the Act does not support this twisted reasoning.

   B. Legislative History Proves Section 1 Exemption

   Applies Only to Transportation Industry Workers

   When the FAA bill was proposed, it did not include the section 1 exemption for "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." Tenney Engineering, Inc. v. United Elec. Radio & Machine Workers of America, 207 F.2d 450, 452 (3d Cir. 1953). The seamen's union objected and asked that this specific exemption be added to the FAA. Id. The Tenney court noted:

   It thus appears that the draftsmen of the Act were presented with the problem of exempting seamen's contracts. Seamen constitute a class of workers as to whom Congress had long provided machinery for arbitration. In exempting them the draftsmen excluded also railroad employees, another class of workers as to whom special procedures for the adjustment of disputes had previously been provided. Both these classes of workers were engaged directly in interstate or foreign commerce. To these the draftsmen of the Act added 'any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.' We think that the intent of the latter language was, under the rule of ejusdem generis, to include only those other classes of workers who are likewise engaged directly in commerce, that is, only those other classes of workers who are actually engaged in the movement of interstate or foreign commerce or in work so closely related thereto as to be in practical effect part of it. The draftsmen had in mind the two...