Another Chicago Cubs Victory (in Court, but Still)

Just last month we celebrated the Cubs’ W over the owner of a rooftop seating venue across the street from storied Wrigley Field. After the post was drafted, the District Court more emphatically denied defendant Aidan Dunican’s motion for reconsideration. On April 14th, in Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC v. Dunican, the court also denied the motion styled in the alternative as a motion to compel arbitration. 

Defendants sought re-hearing because the District Court relied on a new Seventh Circuit precedent created just two months prior the filing of their motion to dismiss. Judge Coleman basically said “Sorry to break it to you, but I have to follow Seventh Circuit decisions, even if they are new.” But Mr. Dunican proffered an alternative argument: the Cubs should be bound by the arbitration agreement in an expired settlement agreement.

The Court’s rejection of that argument seems sound. First the arbitration agreement in question does not empower the arbiter to determine questions of arbitrability, so the Court can decide it. Mr. Dunican tried to argue that the arbiter should aside arbitrabilty, beacuse the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration under the rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), and those rules assign to the arbiter the power to determine the scope of arbitrability. However, the Court notes, that’s not quite what the arbitration provision says. Rather it provides that “[a]ll disputes arising under this [Settlement Agreement] shall be arbitrated according to the rules of the American Arbitration Association (or such other organization as the parties agree upon) …” So it is not clear that the AAA rules would apply.

Second, the arbitration agreement is expired and the conduct at issue occurred after that expiration. Finally, while some provisions of the settlement agreement survive its lapse, the arbitration provision does not. This finding is also relevant to the first issue, because even if Mr. Dunican were correct about the applicability of AAA rules, it is not clear that AAA rules would apply to facts that arose once the arbitration provision is no longer effect.

This last claim is the closest issue. The settlement agreement expressly provided for the survival of some of its provisions. Arbitration was not listed. However, the settlement agreement also provided for the survival of any provision for which ‘survival was equitable.” Mr. Dunican argued that survival of the arbitration provision was equitable, but provided no support for that claim, and so the Court was not persuaded.

Let’s hope the Cubs can lawyer their way to a winning season!