Dotson et al v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al
Filing
56
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Mailed notice(drw, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DANA and ANGELA DOTSON,
Plaintiffs,
No. 10 C 5100
Judge James B. Zagel
v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
d/b/a ACURA and ED NAPLETON
ELMHURST IMPORTS, INC. d/b/a ED
NAPLETON ACURA,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This lawsuit arose from Plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with an Acura denominated as a
“certified pre-owned” vehicle which is one current phrase used instead of “used car in good
condition.” I have no idea what the condition of the Plaintiffs’ Acura was at the time of
purchase. At this threshold (arguably a pre-threshold) stage the only dispute is which forum shall
hear the case, an arbitrator or a judge. The case is an odd bird because the arguments are not
centered on the arbitration agreement; the conflict centers on the consequences of what happened
in open court when the case was effectively sent to arbitration.
When Plaintiffs bought the car they signed an agreement with Ed Napleton Elmhurst
Imports, Inc. (“Dealer”) calling for arbitration of any dispute. The American Honda Motor Co.
Inc. (“Maker”) was not a party to the arbitration agreement. The agreement permitted a party to
demand arbitration after a lawsuit was filed. The Plaintiffs sued the Dealer and the Maker. After
the case was filed, Defendants filed a joint motion to compel arbitration. Often courts have
granted such relief even to non-signatories of arbitration agreements in situations where the
claims against each defendant are largely, if not wholly, inseparable. This intertwining is present
here, where the object of the dispute concerns the condition of one vehicle and representations
made about that vehicle. The vehicle was “processed” or represented to have been “processed”
in one way or another by both defendants.
The complaint, particularly with respect to Maker, is not confined to the Plaintiffs’ car.
Class relief would be sought as well–a common occurrence in litigation based upon a claimed
common defect in or misrepresentation about a consumer product. The Maker and Dealer made
clear their view that class claims could not be adjudicated in arbitration because the arbitration
agreement did not authorize such relief. There is applicable precedent to support this argument.
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S.Ct. 1758 (2010). The class claims, if
permitted, are obviously the most significant component of the remedies sought by Plaintiffs.
They had no objection to arbitration so long as Defendants agreed there to arbitrate class claims.
Defendants refused.
All of this was set forth in a written motion to compel arbitration. When counsel for the
parties were in open court Plaintiffs’ counsel did not ask to respond in writing to the motion to
compel. He agreed to the entry of an order compelling arbitration. I understood (it would be
difficult not to understand this) that his intent was to have the arbitrator determine whether the
class claims could be addressed in arbitration over Defendants’ opposition. I entered a minute
order granting the motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings to allow arbitration to
proceed.
Plaintiffs filed their demand for arbitration. Off the parties went to the arbitrator who
decided that class claims could not be heard within the ambit of the arbitration agreement. The
2
arbitrator further concluded that Maker did not have the right to take the dispute to arbitration
since it was not a signatory to the agreement. This conclusion was based, in part, on his reading
of applicable Illinois law. He also noted that I did not rule explicitly or implicitly that Maker had
the right to demand arbitration. The arbitrator is a former judge with twenty years of service on
an Article III court and, unsurprisingly, he has correctly discerned the limits of what I did and did
not do.
This does not, however, end the matter with respect to Maker nor Dealer. It is undisputed
that Dealer is subject to arbitration on the individual claim. Maker cannot rely upon the premise
that I ruled as a matter of law that he has the right to demand arbitration. What Maker properly
can rely on is my Order which grants the motion to compel arbitration. An Order entered on
consent of the parties, rather than upon a judicial conclusion, reached after briefing or argument,
is nonetheless an Order.1 It has consequences and those consequences lie at the heart of the
dispute here.
Plaintiffs interpret the prior proceedings as judicial approval of their purported offer to go
to arbitration on the condition that refusal of the arbitrator to consider class claims empowers
them to withdraw both the individual claim and the class claim from arbitration and proceed here
with the original lawsuit.2 But this is not what was said at the hearing. What was recognized at
1
There may be cases in which an order based solely on consent is patently illegal or
impossible to carry out but no claim is or could be made of the consent order entered in this case.
2
I assume Plaintiffs’ counsel wants to bring back to court both individual and class
actions against Maker. I assume this is so because if the individual claim is left with the
arbitrator who decides it, Plaintiffs’ ability to “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class” may be undermined. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(a)(4). Where arbitration clauses between
dealers and consumers are routine, then cases exactly like these are unlikely to qualify for class
certification unless the plaintiffs sue only the Maker. As I read the allegations of the complaint it
3
the hearing was the possibility that even in a class claim properly before an arbitrator, there might
be obstacles to proper resolution of class issues due to the limited power of arbitrators, e.g. to
bind non-parties to arbitral awards, to secure evidence, to provide due process. There are good
reasons generally to exclude class claims from arbitration agreements because it may be very
difficult to determine in advance whether arbitration of a class claim is suitable in any particular
case.
At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel could not have meant and was not understood by me to
mean that he believed that the arbitrator would inevitably rule against class relief or that counsel
himself believed that the class claims were legally unsupportable in arbitration proceedings.
Plaintiffs’ counsel has never objected to arbitration with Maker if the arbitration included claims
for class relief. His complaint in arbitration was, in substance, no different than the one he filed
before me.
If Plaintiffs’ counsel thought that he had no good reason to agree to arbitration because he
could not have a class wide remedy, he should have argued that Maker had no right to demand
arbitration and secured my ruling one way or the other. Instead he took his chances at class relief
in arbitration without ever representing to me that if he lost, he wanted a second chance. Had he
done so, it might have changed my willingness to enter the Order at issue.
claims that there is no meaningful certification process so that using the empty phrase
“certified”is simply a sham the salespeople can use to close a deal and the Maker is responsible
for this state of affairs. It might be possible that, under this set of allegations, Plaintiffs could
initiate meaningful class claims against American Honda and forego claims against Dealer.
Obviously I do not express any view as to the merits of this approach since it is not the one taken
by Plaintiffs here.
4
Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to take the case to arbitration and should not now be allowed to
reverse course. He has waived any objection to the right of Maker to seek arbitration. This is not
a situation in which a lawyer offers a stipulation which is accepted and then, two or three weeks
later, realizes the error and seeks to withdraw it. A judge could well allow this where the
stipulation has not affected the proceedings in the last weeks–no costs were incurred, no
strategies changed, nothing meaningful occurred. Here there were months of litigation before the
arbitrator, important rulings were made. Both Dealer and Maker are prejudiced by delay and cost
occasioned by the conduct of the Plaintiffs.
The Maker offers three theories to justify foreclosing the claims made in this court. They
are judicial estoppel, “mend-the-hold” and law of the case. I am reluctant to apply judicial
estoppel, which is a narrow doctrine in this Circuit. See Chaveriat v. Williams Pipe Line Co., 11
F.3d 1420 (7th Cir. 1993). Judicial estoppel can be applied when one party argues “A” against
the opponent’s “Z,” receives some benefit from the ensuing ruling and then turns around in
another proceeding argues “Z” in order to prevail. In this case Plaintiffs’ counsel was not
contending “A” or “Z”, he simply gave in to the result sought by his opponent. “Mend-the-Hold”
is a better fit for this case. Plaintiffs agreed to arbitration with Maker because of what they
believed the arbitrator could do. When that expectation proved wrong they sought to change
their position on the arbitrability of the dispute with Maker. But this too is not quite a change of
legal theory as defined in this Circuit. It is rather an attempt to revive an objection that could
have been but was not made. See In re Betzold, 316 B.R. 906, 918 (Br.N.D. Ill. 2004)
(abandoning in mid-stream its desire to be bound by arbitration agreement is violative of the
“mend-the-hold” doctrine). Law of the case also fits here because I did enter an Order that
5
required arbitration which is the law of the case and not to be altered absent good reason to do so.
Tice v. American Airlines, 373 F.3d 851, 853 (7th Cir. 2004).
The three doctrines are variant approaches to a core principle that litigants should rarely
be allowed to change their minds when the other participants in the case have acted in significant
reliance on the litigant’s initial position. Some key decisions come early in the process, as this
one did. Others may not come until opening statements at trial when a party decides which of the
various theories supported by fact or expert discovery will be used. In this case, Plaintiffs chose
arbitration because they thought they could win for a class in the arbitration. Significant time
and money was spent by Maker and Dealer to show them they were wrong. To permit Plaintiffs
to go back to square one on choice of forum is unjustified. There was a time and place to litigate
the issue of class claims in this court. It was abandoned and now is lost.
Maker and Dealer ask that I enter summary judgment for them on Plaintiffs’ claims. The
arbitrator, upon Plaintiffs’ motion, dismissed the arbitration without prejudice and allowed six
months (only one of which has passed) for Plaintiffs to reinstate the arbitration. The apparent
purpose of this was to allow them to pursue the individual claims if I did not allow them to
revoke their previous consent to (and demand for) arbitration. To grant summary judgment for
Maker and Dealer is to foreclose arbitration of those individual claims.
I decline to do so. The arbitral forum was one which Maker and Dealer both accepted and
clearly wanted. The time and effort there has not been wasted and was anticipated by
Defendants, who expected that the class claims and the arbitrator’s power to decide them would
be litigated. Defendants suffer no prejudice by allowing the arbitration to continue to resolution
of the individual claims.
6
The individual claims can be heard now only in arbitration. The class claims cannot be
heard in this court for the reasons stated above and, apparently, will not be heard in arbitration.
On the grounds that there is no claim left to adjudicate in this Court, I dismiss the complaint in
its entirety with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The
case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
ENTER:
James B. Zagel
United States District Judge
DATE: March 30, 2012
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?