The Estate of Henrietta Reynolds, Deceased et al v. Aurora Australis, LLC
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 19 Order on Motion to Compel Arbitration. Signed by Neal B. Biggers on 3/21/2013. (llw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
The Estate of HENRIETTA REYNOLDS,
Deceased, ROBERT LOWE, Individually and
on behalf of all Wrongful Death Beneficiaries
of HENRIETTA REYNOLDS, Deceased
V.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12CV103-B-S
AURORA AUSTRALIS, LLC, d/b/a
AURORA HEALTH & REHABILITATION,
and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This cause comes before the court upon the defendant Aurora Australis, LLC, d/b/a
Aurora Health & Rehabilitation’s motion to compel arbitration. Upon due consideration of the
motion, response, exhibits, and supporting and opposing authority, the court is ready to rule.
Factual and Procedural Background
Henrietta Reynolds was admitted to Aurora Health and Rehabilitation (“Aurora”) in
Lowndes County, Mississippi, on April 10, 2009. Ms. Reynolds was not physically present
when her admission documentation was executed. Her son, Robert Lowe, signed all of the
admission paperwork, including an arbitration agreement. Lowe was Ms. Reynolds’ personal
representative but not her health care surrogate. Ms. Reynolds signed the arbitration agreement
approximately two months later on June 4, 2009. At that time, no doctor had determined that
Ms. Reynolds was incapable of managing her affairs. Ms. Reynolds was not adjudged
incompetent until April 19, 2010, when Robert Lowe and Ms. Reynolds’ primary care physician,
Adelaide Henderson, executed a document entitled “Appointment of Surrogate,” which granted
Lowe the authority to make all health care decisions on behalf of his mother.
After Ms. Reynolds’ death, the plaintiff filed this wrongful death action against the
defendant in the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, Mississippi, on January 11, 2012, alleging,
inter alia, negligence and tortious breach of contract. The defendant removed the case to this
court based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 on May 10, 2012.
The defendant filed the present motion to compel arbitration on the same day.
Analysis
The Mississippi Supreme Court “has recognized that arbitration is favored and firmly
embedded in both our federal and state laws.” Vicksburg Partners, LP v. Stephens, 911 So. 2d
507, 513 (Miss. 2005), overruled on other grounds by Covenant Health & Rehab. of Picayune,
LP v. Estate of Moulds ex rel. Braddock, 14 So. 3d 695 (Miss. 2009). “[A]ny doubts concerning
the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem at
hand is the construction of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like
defense to arbitrability.” East Ford, Inc. v. Taylor, 826 So. 2d 709, 713 (Miss. 2002).
Under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), arbitration agreements “shall be valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the
revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. In ruling on a motion to compel arbitration under the
FAA, a court must make a two-pronged inquiry. East Ford, 826 So. 2d at 713. “The first prong
has two considerations: (1) whether there is a valid arbitration agreement and (2) whether the
parties’ dispute is within the scope of the arbitration agreement.” Id. Under the second prong,
the question addressed is “whether legal constraints external to the parties’ agreement foreclosed
arbitration of those claims.” Id. (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth,
Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626 (1985)). “[A]pplicable contract defenses available under state contract
2
law such as fraud, duress, and unconscionability may be asserted to invalidate the arbitration
agreement without offending the Federal Arbitration Act.” Id.
The plaintiff mistakenly asserts that the defendant carries the burden to prove that the
arbitration agreement should be enforced. To the contrary, “the party resisting arbitration bears
the burden of proving that the claims at issue are unsuitable for arbitration.” Green Tree
Financial Corp. - Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 93 (2000). The “strong federal policy
favoring arbitration places upon the party opposing arbitration the burden of establishing any
alleged defense to the enforcement of the arbitration provision.” Miss. Credit Center, Inc. v.
Horton, 926 So. 2d 167, 175 (Miss. 2006).
The plaintiff does not contest whether the parties’ dispute is within the scope of the
agreement. He instead focuses his argument on the validity of the agreement. His argument,
however, consists of only vague and conclusory allegations, and he fails to direct the court to any
evidence indicating that the agreement is invalid or contradicting the defendant’s strong
evidence of validity.
In support of its position, the defendant submits the declaration of its former Director of
Admissions, Victoria Johnson, who stated that Ms. Reynolds signed the agreement in her
presence. It is clear that Ms. Reynolds had the legal capacity to execute the document on June 4,
2009, as she was not adjudged incompetent until April 19, 2010, and the plaintiff has offered no
evidence to the contrary. Further, the question raised by the plaintiff as to whether he had the
authority to sign the arbitration agreement on Ms. Reynolds’ behalf is irrelevant because Ms.
Reynolds signed the agreement on her own behalf.
3
Finally, the plaintiff makes only conclusory arguments regarding the agreement’s alleged
unconscionability, asserting, for instance, that the defendant and its attorneys are more
sophisticated than he and his mother but offering no proof in that regard. He offers no evidence
of unconscionability, and his assertion that the agreement was presented in a “take it or leave it
manner” is contradicted by Ms. Johnson’s declaration and the bold, capitalized, enlarged text at
the top of the document itself, which states: “IF THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT SIGNED, THE
RESIDENT WILL STILL BE ALLOWED TO RECEIVE SERVICES AT THIS FACILITY.”
The plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to show that the arbitration agreement is
unconscionable, and the court finds that the agreement should be enforced.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the defendant’s motion to compel
arbitration is well taken and should be granted. Because the valid arbitration agreement at issue
provides for binding and non-appealable arbitration, the court finds that this case should be
dismissed with prejudice. A separate order in accord with this opinion shall issue this day.
This, the 21st day of March, 2013.
/s/ Neal Biggers
NEAL B. BIGGERS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?