Diamante, LLC v. Dye
2015 Ark. 243
| Ark. | 2015Background
- Diamante, LLC appeals a circuit court denial of its motion to compel arbitration with unnamed class members in a hot Springs Village golf-club context.
- The dispute centers on tie-in rights requiring lot owners to become Full Golf Members, pay dues, and grant Diamante security interests tied to land ownership.
- The Dyes initially sued individually in 2012; class certification and related motions followed, with arbitration issues interwoven throughout.
- The court previously held that a valid arbitration agreement existed with the Dyes as individuals and that arbitration could be waived by delay, leading to an appellate affirmation in 2013.
- A subsequent motion to compel arbitration for unnamed class members was denied by the circuit court, which Diamante appeals, and the case was remanded for a determination on whether a valid arbitration agreement exists for the unnamed class.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Diamante waived arbitration for unnamed class members. | Diamante argues no waiver as to unnamed members. | Dyes contend Diamante’s delay constitutes waiver. | Remanded to determine validity of arbitration for unnamed class; no definite waiver ruling on unnamed members. |
| Whether the first appellate law-of-the-case binds arbitration for unnamed members. | Diamante asserts law-of-the-case binds lower court. | Dyes argue ruling only addressed individuals, not unnamed class. | Law-of-the-case not binding on unnamed class; appeal not dismissed on this basis. |
| Whether the appeal is moot or should be dismissed as frivolous. | Diamante maintains appeal remains live on arbitration issues. | Dyes contend mootness due to merits trial. | Appeal considered; not dismissed as moot; remanded for arbitration determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of the Ozarks v. Walker, 2014 Ark. 223 (Ark. 2014) (requires express finding of a valid arbitration agreement before reviewing arbitration order)
- GGNSC Holdings, LLC v. Chappel, 2014 Ark. 545 (Ark. 2014) (vacates or remands when arbitration validity findings are missing)
- Carter v. Cline, 2013 Ark. 398 (Ark. 2013) (law-of-the-case doctrine governs subsequent review of appellate decisions)
- Diamante, LLC v. Dye, 2013 Ark.App. 630, 430 S.W.3d 196 (Ark. App. 2013) (interlocutory/arbitration issues in class-action context)
- Diamante, LLC v. Dye, 2013 Ark. 501, 430 S.W.3d 710 (Ark. 2013) (class certification and arbitration interplay in appeal)
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler—Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1985) (arbitration as a streamlined process must be balanced with class-action considerations)
- Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., 513 U.S. 267 (U.S. 1995) (arbitration within consumer/class contexts involves federal policy on arbitration)
- Southland Corp., 465 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1984) (federal policy favoring arbitration agreements)