HCW Retirement & Financial Services, LLC v. HCW Employee Benefit Services, LLC , 367 N.C. 104 ( 2013 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 384PA12
FILED 28 AUGUST 2013
HCW RETIREMENT AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, a North Carolina limited
liability company; HCWRFS, LLC, formerly Hill, Chesson & Woody Retirement &
Financial Services, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company; and WILTON
R. DRAKE, III
v.
HCW EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICES, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability
company; HILL, CHESSON & WOODY, INC., a North Carolina corporation;
PRESTWICK SIX, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company; FRANK S.
WOODY, III; and TODD T. YATES
On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. ' 7A-31 of a unanimous
decision of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 731 S.E.2d 181 (2012), affirming
an order denying a motion to compel arbitration entered on 9 September 2011 by
Judge Charles C. Lamm, Jr. in Superior Court, Orange County. Heard in the
Supreme Court on 8 May 2013 by special session in the Old Chowan County
Courthouse (1767) in the Town of Edenton pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-10(a).
Northen Blue, LLP, by J. William Blue, Jr., for plaintiff-appellees.
Coats & Bennett, PLLC, by Anthony J. Biller and Emily M. Haas; and Morris,
Manning & Martin, LLP, by Keith D. Burns, for defendant-appellants Frank
S. Woody, III and Todd T. Yates.
HUDSON, Justice.
Here we address whether the individual defendants waived their contractual
right to demand arbitration through actions inconsistent with arbitration rights
HCW V. HCW
Opinion of the Court
and prejudicial to plaintiffs. We conclude that plaintiffs have failed to prove such
prejudicial actions. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and
remand for further proceedings.
Frank Woody and Todd Yates (defendants), along with plaintiff Wilton
Drake, are financial planners and advisers who each own and operate financial
services businesses. On 12 August 2003, defendants and plaintiff Drake formed a
limited liability company, Prescott Office Management. Defendants and plaintiff
Drake each owned a one-third interest in Prescott, and the Operating Agreement
provided that “[a]ll decisions and commitments regarding LLC matters shall be
carried out by the Managers subsequent to the approval of 100% of the Members in
order to be binding on the Company.” Notwithstanding that provision, the
Operating Agreement also specified certain actions that could be taken without
approval of 100% of the Members, including amending the Operating Agreement
itself, which could be accomplished “by Members holding 51% of the aggregate
Company Ownership Interests.” The Operating Agreement also contained an
arbitration provision, which read in pertinent part:
14.10 Arbitration. Any dispute, controversy or
claim arising out of or in connection with, or relating to,
this Operating Agreement or any breach or alleged breach
hereof shall, upon the request of any party involved, be
submitted to, and settled by, arbitration in the State of
North Carolina, pursuant to the commercial arbitration
rules then in effect of the American Arbitration
Association (or at any time or at any other place or under
any other form of arbitration mutually acceptable to the
-2-
HCW V. HCW
Opinion of the Court
parties so involved). Any award rendered shall be final
and conclusive upon the parties and a judgment theron
[sic] may be entered in the highest court of the forum,
state or federal, having jurisdiction.
Around the same time the parties formed Prescott Office Management, LLC,
Prescott itself entered into an Operating Agreement with two other entities to form
Prestwick Six, LLC. Prescott owned a 50% interest in Prestwick. As a result,
Prestwick could not make most business decisions without the approval of Prescott,
which at the time could not make most business decisions without the approval of
all three Members (plaintiff Drake and defendants). On or about 1 September 2004,
Prestwick purchased an office condominium. Subsequently, Prestwick leased space
in its office condominium to plaintiff Drake’s company, HCW Retirement &
Financial Services, LLC (“RFS”), and to defendants’ company, HCW Employee
Benefit Services, LLC (“EBS”).
No material changes in the corporate or office-sharing arrangements occurred
from 2004 until 2010. But in September 2010 defendants Yates and Woody, in their
capacities as Members of Prescott, held a meeting without informing Drake and
amended the Prescott Operating Agreement. The amendments to the Operating
Agreement allowed business decisions to be made with approval of 66% of the
Members, rather than the previously required 100%. These amendments effectively
cut plaintiff Drake out of the decision-making process for Prescott.
-3-
HCW V. HCW
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff Drake alleges, and defendants admit, that defendants used their
control over Prescott—which therefore gave them 50% control over Prestwick—to
decline to renew the lease between Prestwick and plaintiff Drake’s company, RFS,
when the lease terminated on 31 December 2010. Drake, along with his LLCs, filed
suit against defendants EBS, Prestwick, Yates and Woody individually, and another
corporation run in part by Yates and Woody. Although the suit contains numerous
claims against the various defendants; this appeal addresses only the twelfth and
thirteenth claims for relief, which relate to plaintiff Drake and defendants Yates
and Woody individually.
Relevant here are plaintiff Drake’s claims alleging breach of good faith by
defendants as Members of Prescott and defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty to a
minority Member. In response, defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration on
those two issues under section 14.10 of the Operating Agreement. During the
pendency of the motion to compel arbitration but before it was heard, plaintiffs
sought discovery from defendants on those and other issues but defendants objected
on the basis that the claims were subject to arbitration. Also during that period,
defendants deposed plaintiff Drake. During the course of the ten-to-eleven-hour
deposition, plaintiff Drake was asked some questions regarding the twelfth and
thirteenth claims for relief, despite defendants’ refusal to respond to plaintiffs’
discovery requests on those issues pending a ruling on the motion to compel
arbitration. In their briefs the parties appear to agree that the questions related to
-4-
HCW V. HCW
Opinion of the Court
the arbitrable claims consumed approximately one hour of the ten-to-eleven-hour
deposition and occupied exactly forty-eight pages of the lengthy transcript of the
deposition.
The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration on 8 September 2011.
In its order the court found that the two claims in question “do not arise out of the
Operating Agreement or any alleged breach or violation of the Operating
Agreement.” The court concluded that the claims “fall outside the substantive scope
of the arbitration provisions of the Prescott Operating Agreement” and thus “the
dispute is not subject to arbitration.” In the alternative, the court also found that
defendants, by deposing plaintiff Drake about the arbitrable claims after refusing to
respond to Drake’s discovery requests on the same issues, had utilized discovery
procedures that were available in litigation under the Rules of Civil Procedure but
“could occur in arbitration only with permission of the arbitrator.” The court
concluded that plaintiffs were prejudiced by these actions and that “by their acts
and conduct with regard to discovery, Defendants Yates and Woody have impliedly
waived any right that they might have to arbitration.”
Defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals unanimously held that the trial
court had erred in concluding that the claims were not arbitrable, but affirmed on
the basis of waiver. HCW Ret. & Fin. Servs., LLC v. HCW Emp. Benefit Servs.,
LLC, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 731 S.E.2d 181, 193 (2012). In its opinion the Court of
-5-
HCW V. HCW
Opinion of the Court
Appeals panel cited to the rule that a party opposing a motion to compel arbitration
based on waiver has the burden of proving prejudice and to this Court’s prior
holdings explaining what may constitute prejudice. Id. at ___, 731 S.E.2d at 189.
The court concluded “that the trial court’s determination that Defendants waived
their right to have the relevant claims submitted to arbitration by engaging in
discovery that would not have been available as a matter of right during the
arbitration process” was supported by the record and therefore affirmed the trial
court’s order. Id. at ___, 731 S.E.2d at 190. Defendants sought discretionary review
on the waiver issue, which this Court allowed. Because we conclude that plaintiff
has failed to establish prejudicial actions, inconsistent with arbitration, we now
reverse.
In Cyclone Roofing Co. v. David M. LaFave Co. this Court discussed waiver of
contractual arbitration rights. 312 N.C. 224, 229-30, 321 S.E.2d 872, 876-77 (1984).
After noting the strong public policy in favor of arbitration, this Court held that “a
party has impliedly waived its contractual right to arbitration if by its delay or by
actions it takes which are inconsistent with arbitration, another party to the
contract is prejudiced by the order compelling arbitration.” Id. at 229, 321 S.E.2d at
876 (footnote and citations omitted). The Court then described some examples of
what would constitute such prejudice. Id. at 229-30, 321 S.E.2d at 876-77. Two
years later this Court restated those examples concisely in Servomation Corp. v.
Hickory Construction Co.:
-6-
HCW V. HCW
Opinion of the Court
A party may be prejudiced by his adversary’s delay
in seeking arbitration if (1) it is forced to bear the expense
of a long trial, (2) it loses helpful evidence, (3) it takes
steps in litigation to its detriment or expends significant
amounts of money on the litigation, or (4) its opponent
makes use of judicial discovery procedures not available
in arbitration.
316 N.C. 543, 544, 342 S.E.2d 853, 854 (1986). In Cyclone Roofing this Court
determined that the filing of pleadings and a month’s delay before moving to compel
arbitration did not constitute waiver when no discovery was conducted during the
delay and no evidence was lost. 312 N.C. at 233, 321 S.E.2d at 878-79. In
Servomation this Court decided that a party did not waive arbitration despite
serving its opponent with “numerous interrogatories” that, as argued by opposing
counsel, necessitated lengthy responses before moving to compel arbitration. 316
N.C. at 545, 342 S.E.2d at 854-55. The Court noted that no evidence presented by
the party opposing arbitration showed that there had been a long trial, that any
helpful evidence was lost, or that any steps in litigation were taken to the detriment
of that party. Id. at 545, 342 S.E.2d at 854. Most importantly for the purposes of
the current appeal, the Court in Servomation emphasized that “plaintiff has failed
to demonstrate that the judicial discovery procedures used by defendant, or their
equivalent, would be unavailable in arbitration.” Id. (emphasis added).
In reviewing Cyclone Roofing and Servomation, we have identified several
important points. First, this Court has held that a party implicitly waives its right
to compel arbitration when it takes actions inconsistent with arbitration that result
-7-
HCW V. HCW
Opinion of the Court
in prejudice to the opposing side. Second, the party opposing arbitration bears the
burden of proving prejudice. Third, the use of judicial discovery procedures per se
does not constitute prejudicial action; rather, the judicial discovery procedures
employed must be unavailable in arbitration. Cyclone Roofing, 312 N.C. at 230, 321
S.E.2d at 877 (noting potential prejudice when “a party’s opponent takes advantage
of judicial discovery procedures not available in arbitration”); see also Servomation,
316 N.C. at 545, 342 S.E.2d at 854 (requiring for a finding of prejudice that “judicial
discovery procedures used by defendant, or their equivalent, would be unavailable
in arbitration”).
Here, none of the first three examples of prejudicial action described in
Cyclone Roofing and Servomation are at issue. There has been no lengthy trial, no
allegation of helpful evidence lost, and no allegation of detrimental steps taken in
litigation or significant expense incurred.1 Plaintiffs rely solely on the alleged
prejudicial effect of defendants’ use of judicial discovery procedures in a manner
inconsistent with arbitration rights.
Plaintiffs attempt to broaden the inquiry by arguing that the totality of the
circumstances here—in which defendants refused to respond to plaintiffs’ discovery
requests, then took plaintiff Drake’s deposition, then sought to terminate discovery
1 Like the Court of Appeals, we recognize that plaintiffs must have incurred some
expense in having counsel present for the single hour of deposition questions at issue in this
appeal. We do not believe, and plaintiffs do not appear to argue, that this constitutes the
type of significant expense contemplated by the Court in Cyclone Roofing and Servomation.
-8-
HCW V. HCW
Opinion of the Court
by calendaring the motion to compel arbitration—constitute prejudicial actions. We
are not persuaded. Plaintiffs must show prejudice from actions “inconsistent with
arbitration.” Cyclone Roofing, 312 N.C. at 229, 321 S.E.2d at 876. Defendants’
refusal to respond to discovery while the motion to compel was pending is an action
consistent with arbitration. Only their taking of plaintiff Drake’s deposition was
possibly inconsistent with arbitration rights, and plaintiffs must show prejudice
therefrom.
Here plaintiff Drake argues that by spending an hour on the arbitrable
claims during his deposition, defendants “engag[ed] in discovery that could occur in
arbitration only at the discretion of the arbitrator.” The trial court found that
“Defendants have utilized and benefited from discovery . . . that would be available
in arbitration only if permitted by the arbitrator.” The Court of Appeals affirmed
the conclusion that “Defendants waived their right to have the relevant claims
submitted to arbitration by engaging in discovery that would not have been
available as a matter of right.” HCW Ret. & Fin. Servs., ___ N.C. App. at ___, 731
S.E.2d at 190. Each of the passages quoted above contains a subtle but important
shift from the original Cyclone Roofing standard that the discovery employed be
“unavailable in arbitration” to a standard requiring that the discovery employed be
“available only at the discretion of the arbitrator” or “unavailable as a matter of
right.” This varies from the standard this Court has previously endorsed for
prejudice under these circumstances: prior case law requires that the discovery
-9-
HCW V. HCW
Opinion of the Court
procedures employed be unavailable in arbitration, not just unavailable as a matter
of right. If the arbitrator has discretion over the discovery procedures at issue, then
they are not per se unavailable. Moreover, the opinion in Servomation suggests
that discovery need not be exactly reciprocal. See 316 N.C. at 545, 342 S.E.2d at
854 (requiring for a finding of prejudice that “judicial discovery procedures used by
defendant, or their equivalent, would be unavailable in arbitration” (emphasis
added)). Plaintiffs here presented no evidence that the opportunity to question
defendants about the twelfth and thirteenth claims for relief, whether in a formal
deposition or some equivalent interview or examination, would be unavailable at
arbitration.
Plaintiffs here have attempted to prove prejudice specifically because of
defendants’ use of discovery procedures not available in arbitration, but have
offered no evidence that something equivalent to the one hour of deposition
questions would not be available at arbitration. We conclude that plaintiffs have
failed to prove prejudicial actions and therefore, that the trial court and Court of
Appeals erred in finding waiver of contractual arbitration rights. The remaining
issues addressed by the COA are not before this Court and its decision as to those
issues remains undisturbed. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals
affirming the trial court’s order finding waiver and remand this case to that court
for further remand to the trial court for proceedings not inconsistent with this
opinion.
-10-
HCW V. HCW
Opinion of the Court
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
-11-