Russell Musnick v. King Motor Company of Fort Lauderdale, d.b.a., King Auto Mall

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “arbitration awards may USCA11 Case: 22-11556 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 08/31/2023 Page: 14 of 27 14 Opinion of the Court 22-11556 be vacated if they are in manifest disregard of the law” (quotation omitted)
• finding Musnick’s mere recitation that he “genuinely fear[ed] the imposition of attorney’s fees” because he would be “unable to pay” “wholly inadequate to establish that the arbitration would result in prohibitive costs that [would] force him to relinquish his claim”
• claim that cost of arbitration under “loser pays” fees provision would be prohibitive is too speculative to invalidate an otherwise enforceable agreement
• appellate court applies de novo review to denial of motion to compel arbitration under Federal Arbitration Act
• ″Since Green Tree, all but one of the other Circuits that have reconsidered this issue have applied a similar case-by-case approach.″
• “Whether Musnick will, in fact, incur attorneys’ fees in this matter depends entirely on whether he prevails in arbitration.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).