Federal Circuit Affirms Finding Of Non-Arbitrability Under "Wholly Groundless" Standard

Stephen Evans, doing business as Roof n' Box, Inc., had a contract with Building Materials Corp. of America, to promote RNB's "Roof N Box" product, a three-dimensional roofing model...
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Stephen Evans, doing business as Roof n' Box, Inc. ("RNB"), had a contract with Building Materials Corp. of America, ("BMCA") to promote RNB's "Roof N Box" product, a three-dimensional roofing model, to building-construction contractors affiliated with BMCA. The contract contained an arbitration provision. BMCA validly terminated the contract about a year after inception. RNB later sued BMCA, arguing that, post-termination, BMCA appropriated RNB's intellectual property. BMCA moved to compel arbitration, citing the parties' previous contract. A federal district court in Virginia denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding that the dispute did "arise from" the parties' previous contract, and/or was beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement. BMCA appealed, but the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the "wholly groundless" standard governing when courts may decide issues of arbitrability applied, thus allowing the district court to decide arbitrability, which it did, in favor of allowing the lawsuit to proceed. Evans v. Building Materials Corp. of America, No. 2016-2427 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2017)

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.

Federal Circuit Affirms Finding Of Non-Arbitrability Under "Wholly Groundless" Standard

United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Contributor

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More