436 F. App'x 874
10th Cir.2011Background
- Cadle appeals district court order confirming $3.15M arbitration award plus prejudgment interest to Hicks for defamation and IIED.
- Arbitration clause in the note encompassed disputes including torts; arbitration proceeded in three phases.
- Phase I: against Cadle/Buckeye for collections-related claims; the award favored Hicks.
- Phase II: over letters to state AGs; Hicks won substantial damages; Cadle challenged arbitrator's jurisdiction but was defeated.
- Phase III: supplemental complaint alleging further tortious conduct by Cadle; arbitrator awarded Hicks damages.
- Court holds Cadle judicially estopped from challenging arbitrator’s jurisdiction over the third-phase claims; affirmance follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cadle is judicially estopped from disputing arbitrator authority in the third phase | Hicks argues the arbitration clause covers all phase claims and Cadle is barred | Cadle argues estoppel should not extend to the new third-phase claims | Yes; Cadle is judicially estopped; arbitrability affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (estoppel focuses on changing legal positions, not claim-specifics)
- Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 130 S. Ct. 2847 (2010) (arbitration waiver/estoppel principles may apply to arbitration)
- Harrington v. Atlantic Sounding Co., 602 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2010) (arbitration endpoints and jury-trial waiver considerations)