Doyle v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · July 14, 2025 · No. 24-696

Summary

This Second Circuit opinion addresses whether defendants waived their right to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act after participating in district court litigation. Applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., the court holds that prejudice is no longer required to find waiver, focusing instead on whether the party knowingly relinquished the right by acting inconsistently with it. The court concludes that the defendants’ substantive motion to dismiss without mentioning arbitration constituted such inconsistent conduct, thereby affirming the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Walker; Robinson; Merriam
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decision date
July 14, 2025
Docket number
24-696
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of New York denying the defendants' motion to compel arbitration.
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
published
Parties
UBS Financial Services, Inc., Jay S. Blair v. Cynthia T. Doyle, Mollie T. Byrnes, James Weiss, David Welbourn
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

arbitrationwaiverstandard of reviewappellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedureappellate procedurecommercial litigation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the UBS Defendants waived their right to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Holdings

  1. The UBS Defendants waived their right to compel arbitration by seeking dismissal of the claims in district court, and the district court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration is affirmed.

Key quotations

We conclude that the UBS Defendants waived the right to seek arbitration by seeking dismissal of the claims against them in the District Court. Accordingly, the District Court’s denial of the UBS Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is AFFIRMED. (at 25)
The Supreme Court held that courts may not impose a “prejudice requirement” when evaluating whether a party has waived enforcement of an arbitration agreement. (at 419)

Factual background

The trustees of the Peter and Elizabeth C. Tower Foundation sued UBS Financial Services and Jay S. Blair alleging breach of fiduciary duties under the Investment Advisers Act and New York law. The parties executed an arbitration clause in the UBS Agreement, but the defendants first sought dismissal of the case and only later moved to compel arbitration.

Procedural history

The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, then denied their motion to compel arbitration, finding the validity of the arbitration agreement was a factual issue. The defendants appealed that denial.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…