S.A., by her guardians and parents, J.A. and M.A.; J.A. and M.A. v. Aetna Health of Illinois d/b/a Aetna Health Insurance Company and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois v. Oconomowoc Developmental Training Center of Wisconsin, LLC d/b/a Genesee Lake School; MyPath Support Services, LLC d/b/a MyPath; MyPath; Oconomowoc Residential Programs, Inc.; Board of Education of Maine Township High School District 207; John/Jane Doe #1-5; and ABC Insurance Company

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denies the plaintiffs’ motion to strike and grants the GLS defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. The court concludes that the arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegates threshold arbitrability issues, including challenges to the agreement’s scope and enforceability, to the arbitrator. The court also grants the Board’s motion to stay and administratively closes the case pending arbitration.

Holdings

1. A court may not strike an entire motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which authorizes striking matter from a pleading, and an underdeveloped or allegedly weak legal argument and non-egregious Local Rule violation do not warrant striking the motion.
2. The arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated gateway questions concerning the making, validity, enforceability, unconscionability, scope, arbitrability, interpretation, waiver, and other defenses to the arbitration agreement to the arbitrator.
3. Plaintiffs failed to establish that the delegation clause was either procedurally or substantively unconscionable under Wisconsin law; therefore, the delegation clause was enforceable.
4. The GLS defendants' motion to compel arbitration was granted, and the plaintiffs' claims against those defendants were ordered to arbitration under the parties' agreement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs' motion to strike the GLS defendants' motion to compel arbitration should be granted based on alleged noncompliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's Local Rules.
2. Whether the arbitration agreement contains clear and unmistakable evidence delegating gateway arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.
3. Whether plaintiffs established that the delegation clause itself was procedurally and substantively unconscionable under Wisconsin law.
4. Whether the case should be stayed pending arbitration, including the claims against the Board.

Disposition

other