Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Tiffany Johnson and Tracy Crider, Maryland residents, obtained credit card accounts from Continental Finance Company, LLC and Continental Purchasing, LLC. They filed separate class-action lawsuits in Maryland state court, alleging that Continental violated Maryland usury laws by charging excessive interest rates through a "rent-a-bank" scheme. They sought statutory damages and declaratory judgments to void their loans. Continental removed the cases to the District of Maryland and moved to compel arbitration based on a cardholder agreement containing an arbitration provision.The District of Maryland consolidated the cases and denied Continental's motions to compel arbitration. The court held that it was responsible for determining whether the arbitration agreement was illusory, not the arbitrator. It also found that the choice-of-law provisions in the agreements could not be applied before establishing the existence of a valid contract. Finally, the court concluded that the arbitration agreement was illusory under Maryland law due to a "change-in-terms" clause allowing Continental to unilaterally alter any term at its sole discretion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the court, not the arbitrator, should determine the contract's formation. It also concurred that the choice-of-law provisions could not be enforced before establishing a valid contract. Finally, the court held that the arbitration agreement was illusory under Maryland law because the change-in-terms clause allowed Continental to escape its contractual obligations, rendering the agreement non-binding. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Johnson v. Continental Finance Co., LLC" on Justia Law

In 2020 and 2021, Rohan Dhruva and Joshua Stern, residents of California, created accounts and subscribed to CuriosityStream, an online streaming service. They later discovered that CuriosityStream was sharing their event data and other identifiers with Meta, which they claimed violated the federal Video Privacy Protection Act and California state law. Consequently, they filed a putative class action lawsuit in Maryland, where CuriosityStream is headquartered.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied CuriosityStream's motion to compel arbitration. The court acknowledged that the website provided adequate notice of the Terms of Use through a conspicuous hyperlink but concluded that users were not given clear notice that clicking the "Sign up now" button constituted agreement to the Terms of Use. CuriosityStream's motion for reconsideration was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that Dhruva and Stern had reasonable notice that registering for the streaming service would constitute assent to the website’s Terms of Use, which included an arbitration clause. The court held that the design and content of the website provided sufficient notice of the terms and that Dhruva and Stern manifested their assent by registering with the website. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Dhruva v. CuriosityStream, Inc." on Justia Law

The Berkeley County School District filed a lawsuit against several defendants, including HUB International Ltd. and HUB International Midwest Ltd., alleging claims related to insurance policies and services provided. HUB sought to compel arbitration based on brokerage service agreements (BSAs) from 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009, and 2011. The district court denied the motion, and HUB appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a trial to resolve factual disputes about the agreements. After a bench trial, the district court again denied the motion, finding no meeting of the minds for the 2006, 2009, and 2011 BSAs and precluding consideration of the 2002 and 2003 BSAs. HUB appealed again, and the appellate court vacated the judgment regarding the 2002 and 2003 BSAs.On remand, the district court found the 2002 and 2003 BSAs valid and enforceable but denied HUB's motion to compel arbitration, deciding that the dispute did not fall within the scope of those agreements. HUB appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court erred by deciding the arbitrability of the dispute itself. The appellate court held that the arbitration provisions in the 2002 and 2003 BSAs, which incorporate the American Arbitration Association (AAA) commercial rules, clearly delegate arbitrability questions to the arbitrator. Therefore, the district court should have compelled arbitration to resolve whether the claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreements.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to compel arbitration of the threshold arbitrability question in accordance with the parties' agreement. View "Berkeley County School District v. HUB International Limited" on Justia Law

Jason and Kacie Highsmith hired Shelter, LLC to manage a home renovation project and later contracted with Design Gaps, Inc. to design and install cabinets and closets. The contracts required arbitration for disputes but did not specify completion dates. Design Gaps failed to meet multiple promised deadlines, leading the Highsmiths to terminate the contracts and hire another company. The Highsmiths shared Design Gaps' copyrighted drawings with the new contractor. They then filed for arbitration, alleging breach of contract and other claims, while Design Gaps counterclaimed for various issues, including copyright infringement.The arbitrator held a three-day hearing, during which the Highsmiths presented multiple witnesses, while Design Gaps only presented David Glover. The arbitrator found in favor of the Highsmiths, awarding them damages and attorney’s fees, and denied Design Gaps' counterclaims, including the copyright claim, citing fair use and lack of evidence for copyright registration.Design Gaps petitioned the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina to vacate the arbitration award, arguing the arbitrator disregarded the law and failed to issue a reasoned award. The district court denied the petition and confirmed the arbitration award, also granting the Highsmiths' motion for attorney’s fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the appeal, citing lack of federal jurisdiction based on the precedent set in Friedler v. Stifel, Nicolaus, & Co., which held that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over motions to vacate arbitration awards unless there is an independent basis for federal jurisdiction beyond the Federal Arbitration Act. The court concluded that the petition did not meet this requirement. View "Design Gaps, Inc. v. Shelter, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, who are military members, filed a class action against Citibank, alleging violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) and other statutes. They claimed Citibank improperly charged them higher interest rates and fees on their credit card balances after they left active duty, contrary to the SCRA's protections. The credit card agreements included arbitration clauses that required disputes to be resolved individually, not as class actions.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied Citibank's motion to compel arbitration, holding that the SCRA allowed servicemembers to bring class actions in federal court despite any prior agreement to arbitrate. The court interpreted the SCRA's provision allowing class actions "notwithstanding any previous agreement to the contrary" as overriding the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the SCRA does not explicitly prohibit arbitration agreements and that the FAA requires enforcement of such agreements unless there is a clear congressional command to the contrary. The court found that the SCRA's language did not provide such a command and that the arbitration agreements should be enforced according to their terms, which included individual arbitration.The Fourth Circuit remanded the case with instructions to compel arbitration for all claims except those under the Military Lending Act (MLA). The court noted that the MLA explicitly prohibits arbitration agreements for disputes involving the extension of consumer credit to servicemembers. The district court was instructed to determine whether the MLA applied to the plaintiffs' credit card accounts and to address any related issues. View "Espin v. Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law

Six small businesses entered into two contracts with Bank of America: one for deposit accounts, which included an arbitration provision, and another for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans, which did not include an arbitration clause. When disputes arose regarding the bank's handling of the PPP loans, the businesses sued the bank in federal court. The bank moved to compel arbitration based on the deposit agreements.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the bank's motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint. The court concluded that the deposit agreements contained a valid and enforceable delegation clause, which required that any disputes about the arbitrability of the claims be decided by an arbitrator, not the court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the deposit agreements clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. The court noted that the businesses failed to properly raise any fourth-order disputes, which would involve determining which of the two contracts governed the arbitrability of the disputes. The court also found that the businesses did not specifically challenge the validity of the delegation clause itself, which is necessary to avoid its application.The Fourth Circuit held that the district court correctly compelled arbitration and dismissed the complaint, as the businesses did not request a stay of the proceedings pending arbitration. The court emphasized that the businesses' arguments about the scope of the arbitration provision were matters for the arbitrator to decide, given the valid delegation clause in the deposit agreements. View "Modern Perfection, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

Four plaintiffs were injured when a railing collapsed at FedExField during a professional football game. They sued the owner of the football team, the owner of the stadium, the security services provider, and unidentified maintenance persons for negligence. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the terms and conditions of the tickets, which were purchased online by a friend of the plaintiffs, Brandon Gordon.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the motion to compel arbitration. The court found factual disputes regarding whether Gordon agreed to the arbitration clause. Additionally, the court held that even if Gordon had agreed to the arbitration clause, the defendants did not demonstrate that Gordon was an agent of the plaintiffs who could bind them to the arbitration clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's decision regarding the plaintiffs being bound by any contract Gordon may have entered into, finding that Gordon had apparent authority to bind the plaintiffs to the arbitration clause. The court held that the Washington Football Team's reliance on Gordon's apparent authority was reasonable and traceable to the plaintiffs' actions of using the tickets to enter the stadium. The court vacated the district court's order denying arbitration and remanded the case to resolve the factual disputes about whether Gordon entered into a contract that included the arbitration clause. View "Naimoli v. Pro-Football, Inc." on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, Smith-Phifer and Patterson, served with the Charlotte Fire Department for over twenty years and alleged racial discrimination by the department. They filed a lawsuit against the City of Charlotte, claiming violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983, and the North Carolina Constitution. The case was initially brought in state court but was removed to federal court. Smith-Phifer and the City reached a settlement during her trial, while Patterson's case was delayed due to illness and later went to mediation.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted Smith-Phifer and Patterson’s motions to enforce their settlement agreements. The court found that the City breached the agreements by not treating the settlement payments as pension-eligible wages under the Charlotte Firefighters Retirement Systems Act. The City appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its decision, particularly in not holding an evidentiary hearing for Patterson’s case and in its interpretation of the settlement terms regarding pension eligibility.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the district court’s order regarding Patterson, stating that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine whether a complete settlement agreement was reached. The court found that there were unresolved factual disputes about the terms of the agreement, particularly regarding sick leave and pension eligibility.However, the court affirmed the district court’s decision regarding Smith-Phifer. It held that the City breached the settlement agreement by failing to make the required retirement deduction from the payment to Smith-Phifer. The court concluded that the payment was “Compensation” under the Charlotte Firefighters Retirement Systems Act, which mandated the deduction. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Smith-Phifer v. City of Charlotte" on Justia Law

William Lyons opened a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) account with National City Bank in 2005, which was later acquired by PNC Bank. PNC withdrew funds from Lyons' deposit accounts to offset outstanding HELOC payments without prior notification. Lyons contested these withdrawals, claiming they were unauthorized. PNC responded, asserting their right to make the withdrawals. Lyons then sued for economic and statutory damages, as well as emotional distress.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. PNC moved to compel arbitration on the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim, which the district court partially granted. Both parties appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits arbitration of claims related to residential mortgage loans. The case was remanded to the district court, which ruled in favor of PNC on both the TILA and Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (RESPA) claims. The district court held that TILA’s offset provision does not apply to HELOCs and that the CFPB had the authority to exempt HELOCs from RESPA’s requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that TILA’s offset provision does apply to HELOCs, reversing the district court’s decision on the TILA claim. The court found that the term "credit card plan" includes HELOCs when accessed via a credit card. However, the court affirmed the district court’s decision on the RESPA claim, agreeing that the CFPB has the authority to exempt HELOCs from RESPA’s definition of “federally related mortgage loans.” The case was reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part. View "Lyons v. PNC Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Loretta Marshall applied for a nursing job with Tidelands Health using their online application process. After failing a mandatory physical agility test, she was denied employment. Marshall then sued Tidelands, alleging that the physical agility test constituted prohibited discrimination. Tidelands moved to compel arbitration, arguing that Marshall had agreed to arbitration through the online application process. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Tidelands had not shown the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina reviewed the case. Initially, Tidelands argued that Marshall's 2016 arbitration agreement covered her 2020 application. The magistrate judge found that the 2016 agreement did not apply to future applications. Tidelands then argued that Marshall agreed to arbitration in 2020, but the magistrate judge found that Marshall was not required to scroll through the arbitration agreement in 2020 and was not on reasonable notice of the agreement. The district court agreed with the magistrate judge and denied Tidelands' motion to compel arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Tidelands failed to show that Marshall had reasonable notice of an offer to arbitrate in 2020. The court noted that Marshall was not required to scroll through the arbitration agreement and that the arbitration notice at the top of the webpage did not provide the actual terms of an agreement. Additionally, the court found that Marshall did not manifest her assent to the arbitration agreement by clicking the "submit" button, as it did not clearly indicate agreement to arbitration. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that no arbitration agreement was formed in 2020. View "Marshall v. Georgetown Memorial Hospital" on Justia Law