Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Beavens ex rel. Estate of Beavens
123 F. Supp. 3d 619
E.D. Pa.2015Background
- Estate sues GGNSC in Berks County for wrongful death and survival claims; GGNSC argues ADR Agreement requires arbitration.
- ADR Agreement requires mediation then binding arbitration; covers disputes arising from resident’s stay; signed by Beavens via power of attorney.
- Front-page bold warning states waiver of jury trial; signing allowed revocation within 30 days; facility pays most arbitration costs; JAMS controls mediation.
- Survival claims (counts 1–4) belong to decedent’s estate but arise from GGNSC negligence; wrongful death claim (count 5) is a separate statutorily created action for heirs.
- State court action is stayed for counts 1–4 pending arbitration; count 5 may proceed in state court; the court addresses dismissal and then grants partial arbitration relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal jurisdiction exists to compel arbitration | Beavens argues lack of complete diversity/the necessary joinder | GGNSC asserts FAA jurisdiction and that joinder risks diversity loss | Subject matter jurisdiction exists; arbitration compelled for counts 1–4; dismissal not warranted |
| Whether Dunion and Curry are indispensable parties destroying diversity | Dunion and Curry are Pennsylvania residents whose joinder would destroy diversity | Indispensable parties but joinder would defeat federal jurisdiction | Dunion and Curry are not indispensable; action may proceed without them |
| Whether Rule 213 wrongful death preempts FAA to require bifurcation | Rule 213 compels consolidation, interfering with arbitration | FAA preempts Rule 213 to allow bifurcation and enforcement of ADR | Rule 213 preempted; counts 1–4 must be arbitrated; count 5 remains in state court |
| Whether the ADR Agreement covers the survival claims and scopes them to arbitration | Agreement binds decedent’s rights; survival claims fall within scope | Only claims on behalf of Mr. Beavens are bound; wrongful death not bound | ADR Agreement covers survival claims (counts 1–4) and not wrongful death (count 5) |
| Whether a stay of state court proceedings is appropriate for counts 1–4 | Stay necessary to enforce arbitration | Non-arbitrating count 5 may proceed; stay is discretionary | Stay granted for counts 1–4; count 5 may proceed in state court with possible stay discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (Supreme Court 2009) (jurisdictional basis required for access to federal forum)
- Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (FAA permits piecemeal resolution to give effect to arbitration agreement)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (U.S. 2011) (FAA preempts state rules that undermine arbitration agreements)
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (U.S. 1989) (FAA preempts state laws rendering arbitration agreements unenforceable)
- Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc., 113 A.3d 317 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015) (state rule preemption; discussed in FAA preemption context)
- Pisano v. Extendicare Homes, Inc., 77 A.3d 651 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (wrongful death beneficiaries not bound by decedent’s ADR agreement)
- Parilla v. IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc., 368 F.3d 269 (3d Cir. 2004) (burden to show arbitration costs; unconscionability framework)
- Quilloin v. Tenet HealthSystem Philadelphia, Inc., 673 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2012) (substantive unconscionability; contract adhesion factors)
- Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., 716 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 2013) (facial validity of arbitration agreement; discovery on arbitrability)