Hunt v. Moore Bros., Inc. Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit2017Docket #65662604
861 F.3d 655 2017 WL 2803180 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11607

Audio lesson available for this case

LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.

Unlock with LSD+

Complete case briefs with LSD+

Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

4 min read

tl;dr: An attorney was sanctioned for making objectively unreasonable arguments against enforcing an arbitration agreement. The court affirmed, emphasizing the Federal Arbitration Act’s strong policy favoring arbitration and its preemption of contrary state law, even where parties fail to select an arbitrator.

Legal Significance: An arbitration clause is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) even if it lacks a specific arbitrator selection method. The FAA provides a default judicial appointment mechanism, preempting state law that would deem such a clause an unenforceable “agreement to agree.”

Hunt v. Moore Bros., Inc. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

James Hunt, a truck driver, entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement with Moore Bros., Inc. The agreement contained a clause requiring binding arbitration for all disputes, with the arbitrator to be “mutually agreed upon by both parties.” When a dispute arose, Hunt’s attorney, Jana Rine, bypassed arbitration and filed a federal lawsuit with numerous claims. Moore moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Rine resisted, arguing that Moore’s alleged material breach voided the arbitration clause. The district court rejected this argument and ordered the parties to select an arbitrator. When the parties failed to agree on one, Rine filed a motion to vacate the order compelling arbitration. She argued that the parties’ failure to agree revealed the clause to be a mere “agreement to agree,” which she contended was unenforceable under Nebraska law. The district court found this argument meritless, holding it was preempted by the FAA. Concluding that Rine’s conduct had unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings, the court sanctioned her under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Rine appealed the sanctions order.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Is an arbitration agreement unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act when it requires the parties to mutually agree on an arbitrator but they fail to do so, thereby justifying an attorney’s legal challenges to its validity?

No. The court affirmed the sanctions, holding that the attorney’s arguments against Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

About IRAC analysis

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.

Legal Issue

Is an arbitration agreement unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act when it requires the parties to mutually agree on an arbitrator but they fail to do so, thereby justifying an attorney’s legal challenges to its validity?

Conclusion

This case establishes that an attorney's reliance on state law to invalidate Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullam

Legal Rule

An arbitration agreement is not rendered unenforceable by the parties' failure to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla par

Legal Analysis

The court's analysis centered on the supremacy of the Federal Arbitration Act Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore m

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A court can sanction an attorney under 28 U.S.C. § 1927
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial