Tel. U.S. Invs. v. Lumen Techs.

3 Citing cases

  1. Wallrich v. Samsung Elecs. Am.

    691 F. Supp. 3d 867 (N.D. Ill. 2023)

    Additionally, many courts have held that reference to or incorporation of AAA rules - which the agreement here references - constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence to delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator. See Tel. Invs. USA, Inc. v. Lumen Techs., Inc., 2022 WL 2828751, at *4 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2022) (collecting cases).

  2. Hammond, Kennedy, Whitney & Co. v. Freudenberg N. Am. Ltd. P'ship

    22-cv-04394 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2023)

    Courts have found that carve-out provisions of this sort address which claims should be brought in arbitration, rather than who decides the question of arbitrability. See, e.g. Telephone Investments USA, Inc. v. Lumen Tech., Inc., No. 22-cv-2260, 2022 WL 2828751, at *6-8 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2022) (Rowland, J.) (discussing cases where parties created carve outs that “refer[] to a class of disputes” and not “threshold issues of arbitrability”). Therefore, the Court finds that the parties agreed to arbitrate questions of arbitrability and moves to compel arbitration.

  3. O'Connor v. Ford Motor Co.

    20-cv-2095 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2023)   Cited 6 times

    Henry Schein, 139 S.Ct. at 529; see also Telephone Investments USA, Inc. v. Lumen Technologies, Inc., 2022 WL 2828751, at *4 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2022).