Amirmotazedi v. Viacom, Inc.
768 F. Supp. 2d 256
D.D.C.2011Background
- Amirmotazedi filed in DC Superior Court alleging invasion of privacy and emotional distress against Viacom, MTV Networks, and Bunim-Murray.
- Defendants removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, and moved to compel arbitration or to stay the litigation.
- The Real World DC participant guest releases contain an arbitration provision that assigns disputes arising from the agreement to binding arbitration.
- Plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement shortly before entering the house, but alleges she was heavily intoxicated and lacked capacity to consent.
- Defendants aired episodes/outtakes in March 2010 alleging Plaintiff was portrayed in a certain manner; Plaintiff claims this caused ridicule and distress.
- The court applied summary-judgment standards to the FAA motion and held that the intoxication defense to formation must be decided by the court, not arbitrator, and that genuine issues preclude arbitration at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intoxication affects formation of the arbitration agreement | Amirmotazedi lacked capacity to sign due to intoxication, making arbitration unconcluded. | Intoxication is for the arbitrator to decide in the first instance under Buckeye/Prima Paint framework. | Court to decide formation issue; arbitration not compelled at this stage. |
| Whether summary judgment on intoxication defense is appropriate | Genuine issue exists about intoxication; not appropriate to grant summary judgment. | Intoxication defense can be resolved in arbitration; summary judgment should resolve it. | Summary judgment not appropriate; dispute remains; arbitration denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967) (fraud-in-the-inducement of contract vs. arbitration clause distinction governs who decides)
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006) (challenge to contract generally vs. arbitration clause itself; formation issues addressed by court or arbitrator accordingly)
- Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 304 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2002) (mental capacity defenses affect arbitration clause formation vs. contract as a whole)
- Spahr v. Secco, 330 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 2003) (mental capacity defenses to formation belong to the arbitrator or court based on formation vs. provision challenge)
- Jung v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colls., 300 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D.D.C. 2004) (outline of FAA § 4 analysis in district court context)