Willis of Arizona, Inc. v. Hakkasan USA, Inc.

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court consolidated an appeal concerning a motion to compel arbitration with a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the denial of a motion to strike a jury demand. The court held that the parties’ broker terms and conditions did not apply to Hakkasan’s tort claims concerning Willis’s alleged interference with an insurance claim because those allegations fell outside Willis’s insurance-placement services. The court denied the writ petition in Docket No. 82833 and affirmed the denial of the motion to compel arbitration in Docket No. 82829.

Holdings

1. The dispute-resolution provision did not apply because Hakkasan's tort claims did not arise out of or relate to services Willis provided under the Broker Terms, Conditions and Disclosures. The district court therefore did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in refusing to strike the jury demand.
2. The court had jurisdiction because the district court's conclusion that Hakkasan's claims fell outside the terms, together with its denial of Willis's motion, necessarily denied the request to compel arbitration.
3. The district court properly denied the motion to compel arbitration because the Broker Terms, Conditions and Disclosures did not govern Hakkasan's underlying claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously by refusing to strike Hakkasan's jury demand because Hakkasan's claims were outside the scope of the Broker Terms, Conditions and Disclosures.
2. Whether the Nevada Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from an order that expressly denied a motion to strike a jury demand but necessarily denied a motion to compel arbitration.
3. Whether the Broker Terms, Conditions and Disclosures required arbitration of Hakkasan's underlying tort claims.

Disposition

affirmed