AAA! My favorite new arbitration forum!!!

[david9041]

Originally Posted by rippedoff

Why withhold names? which firm?

If your asking about mine its Cap1 and the law firm is Rubin & Debski , When I went to arbitration they switched law firms , I also have one JDB case .

[rippedoff]

Originally Posted by trueq

here

One big law firm is now challenging the waiver issue for people that waited too long in WI. (so creditor can ESCAPE arbitration!)

Which firm? K? Z?

[trueq]

but consumer attorneys have informed me that Messerli & Kramer are now arguing "waiver" in WI when a consumer tries to slap them with arbitration.

Previously, with me, they tried to argue the arbitration clause doesn't exist.

Judges don't buy that bunk for a minute!

So this is their new...and only strategy, in WI to stay out of the tremendous time and expense of arbitration.

Just to add what Budd Hibbs says about M&K...they are stooping to a new legal low against consumers on the arbitration waiver issue...most of whom are pro se'.

I think there will be a "bright line" test on arbitration waiver in WI real soon because this issue is getting hot in consumer cases.

Just when is the litigation "frustrated" by arbitration exercise.

That's different with every single judge.

[TBirdLady42]

I'm a little concerned that the assertion of counterclaims in effect waives the right to arbitration in and of itself....

I don't know if I'm on the right track here or not, but I happened to Sheperdize the Meyer v. Classified Ins. Corp., and found a Federal case from the Eastern District of Wisconsin that distinguishes the Meyer case. The case is Fleet Mortgage Corporation v. Paul Lynts, Chicago Title Insurance Company, and Wisconsin Laywers Mutual Insurance Company (885 F. Supp. 1187; 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14849). I quote from this case:

"With the five factors in Meyer, the defendant was deemed to have waived arbitration because of a number of factors: 1) the deadline for motions had passed; 2) the motion was not filed in time with respect to the scheduling order; 3) the case had been pending a long time; 4) the trial date had been set; 5) there was nothing in the defendant's answer requesting arbitration. None of these factors is present in this dispute."

The case then goes on to say:
"It cannot be said that Chicago Title in this instance has acted in a manner inconsistent with a desire to arbitrate this dispute.
Chicago Title made it very clear from the very outset that it intended to avail itself of the arbitration claise. In Chicago Title's answer at paragraph two, it expressly noted that it believed the dispute was covered by the arbitration clause of the title insurance policy. Chicago Title's motion to compel arbitration was filed less than ten days after the answer and cross complaint."

The crux of the case is that since Chicago Title clearly elected arbitration in their answer, even though they originally submitted an answer with counterclaims and filed a motion to dismiss, those counterclaims did not overshadow the clear election of arbitration and did not cause the arbitration clause to be waived.... So it appears to me that a clear election of arbitration from the outset of the case with a motion to stay/compel arbitration holds water, even if counterclaims are asserted with the original answer, correct?