Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
UNITE HERE
-
Filed: May 07, 2024 | Entered: May 07, 2024 Unite Here Local 1 v. Magnificent Mile Hotel Management, LLC
720(Labor: Labor/Mgt. Relations) | Illinois Northern
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Motion hearing held on 5/7/2024. Before the Court are Plaintiff Unite Here Local 1's motion to compel arbitration (Dkt. 16 ) and Defendant Magnificent Mile Hotel Management LLC's motion to appoint an arbitrator (Dkt. 9 ). For the reasons detailed in open Court and stated below, Local 1's motion is granted 16 and Magnificent Mile's is denied 9 . Magnificent Mile assumed a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") with Local 1 as of December 20, 2021. (Dkt. 14 at 2; Dkt. 18-1 3). To select arbitrators, the CBA states that "unless the Union and the Employer agree upon an Arbitrator, the Arbitrator shall be selected by random drawing" from a list of nine arbitrators. (Dkt. 14 at 2). On December 8, 2023, the parties' representatives met via Zoom meeting to select an arbitrator for an underlying grievance. (Id. at 45). Local 1's representative proceeded to follow their usual practice of sharing their screen, entering the names of the nine prospective arbitrators on www.random.org, and pressing the command to generate a random number list. (Dkt. 14 at 5; Dkt. 16-1 8). An unrelated arbitration was pending between the parties before Arbitrator Peter Meyers, so Magnificent Mile requested that his name be left off the list. (Dkt. 18-1 8, 11). As was their usual practice, Local 1 declined. To Magnificent Mile's chagrin, the website randomized list chose Peter Meyers as the designated arbitrator. (Dkt. 14 at 5; Dkt. 16-1 at 5-6). There is no dispute regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement or the arbitrability of the grievance. Yet, Magnificent Mile now objects to the selection of Peter Meyers through the randomized online software generator. Magnificent Mile frames the current standoff as a "lapse" under Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act. 9 U.S.C. § 5 (noting that a court has jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator "if for any other reason there shall be a lapse in the naming of an arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire... then upon the application of either party to the controversy the court shall designate and appoint an arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire."). Yet, as Section 5's first sentence notes, the Court is bound to the text of the CBA: "if in the agreement provision be made for a method of naming or appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators or an umpire, such method shall be followed." 9 U.S.C. § 5. The CBA clearly provides for selection by "random drawing." Green v. U.S. Cash Advance Illinois, LLC, 724 F.3d 787, 792 (7th Cir. 2013) ("Section 5 applies 'if no method be provided' in the contract-that is, if the parties use the sort of detail-free clause we have just imagined."); see also Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 547 F. Supp. 2d 899, 914 (N.D. Ill. 2008), aff'd sub nom. WellPoint, Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 576 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2009). Magnificent Mile creates no serious dispute to the validity of an online random number generator to conduct "random drawing." In fact, they acknowledge that they would have been amenable to drawing names out of a hat. It is apparent that Magnificent Mile is unhappy with the result of the drawing, but there is no "lapse" under Section 5 or compelling reason to allow a second bite at the selection process. See Hunt v. Moore Bros., Inc., No. 15-CV-0433-MJR-SCW, 2016 WL 9454071, at *4 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 5, 2016). An arbitrator was selected in a reasonable manner consistent with the text of the CBA. Thus, their motion is denied, and the parties are ordered to arbitration. Case is stayed pending arbitration. Mailed notice (lk, ) (Entered: 05/07/2024)
-
Response | Filed: May 03, 2024 | Entered: May 07, 2024 IN RE: CLOBETASOL CASES (END-PAYER)
Other Statutes: Anti-Trust | Pennsylvania Eastern
Response in Opposition to Motion
End-Payer Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motions to Exclude the Opinions of Russell L. Lamb (ECF 247) (FILED UNDER SEAL) (mbh) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/7/2024: # 1 Ex 1, # 2 Ex 2, # 3 Ex 3, # 4 Ex 4, # 5 Ex 5, # 6 Ex 6, # 7 Ex 7, # 8 Ex 8, # 9 Ex 9, # 10 Ex 10, # 11 Ex 11) (mbh).
-
Response | Filed: May 03, 2024 | Entered: May 07, 2024 IN RE: CLOBETASOL CASES (END-PAYER)
Other Statutes: Anti-Trust | Pennsylvania Eastern
Response in Opposition to Motion
End-Payer Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Exclude the Opinions of James T. McClave, Ph.D. (ECF 249) (FILED UNDER SEAL)(mbh) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/7/2024: # 1 Ex 1, # 2 Ex 2 Part 1, # 3 Ex 2 Part 2, # 4 Ex 3, # 5 Ex 4, # 6 Ex 5, # 7 Ex 6, # 8 Ex 7) (mbh).
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login