The Fourth Circuit upheld a district court's decision refusing to compel arbitration in a labor dispute between a gentlemen's club ("Crazy Horse") and a putative class of entertainers because of Crazy Horse's extensive merits-based litigation conduct. Plaintiff Degidio, an entertainer at Crazy Horse, sued the club under the FLSA and South Carolina labor laws for allegedly misclassifying entertainers as independent contractors rather than employees.
Crazy Horse answered the complaint, participated in discovery, filed several merits-based motions for summary judgment, opposed Degidio's motions for certification of class and collective actions, and repeatedly moved to certify state law questions to the South Carolina Supreme Court. In the midst of this conduct and without informing the court, Crazy Horse began entering into arbitration agreements with its new entertainers. Three years after the litigation had commenced, Crazy Horse moved to compel arbitration against a handful of plaintiffs who had recently joined the suit. The district court declined to enforce the arbitral agreements.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed. Under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), a party waives its right to compel arbitration when it has "so substantially utilized the litigation machinery that to subsequently permit arbitration would prejudice the party opposing the stay." The court emphasized that Crazy Horse engaged in substantive litigation maneuvers for over three years, including extensive and substantive motions practice that indicated it was hoping for a favorable ruling on the merits. More, those same issues Crazy Horse pursued in court would need to be reargued before an arbitrator if the court were to compel arbitration. Thus, the court concluded the "only possible purpose" of the arbitration agreements was to grant Crazy Horse another "bite at the apple" if it lost on the merits in court.
Crazy Horse argued it could not have moved for arbitration earlier because the entertainers with whom it had entered arbitration agreements had only recently joined the case. The court rejected this argument because Crazy Horse failed to notify the court of the agreements as they occurred, thereby avoiding court supervision, and because compelling arbitration here would give perverse incentives to parties to delay the motion to compel arbitration as long as possible. The court also denounced Crazy Horse's conduct in entering the arbitration agreements because they gave false impressions and the secretive manner in which Crazy Horse implied it sought to avoid the court's supervisory role.
Degidio v. Crazy Horse Saloon & Rest. Inc., No. 17-1145 (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2018).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
