Date: 08-06-2024

Case Style:

Kiara Standifer and Quentina Tate v. Suntrup Hyundal, Inc. and Hyundai Motor America Corp.

Case Number: 23SL-CC02853

Judge: John N. Borbonus

Court: Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best St. Louis Consumer Law Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Mary Anne Mellow, et al.

Description:

St. Louis, Missouri consumer law breach of warranty lawyer represented the Plaintiff.

Kiara Standifer and Quentina Tate (collectively, "Consumers") each purchased a Hyundai vehicle from a dealership in St. Louis County. Subsequent to their purchases, Consumers' vehicles were stolen.

Consumers filed a petition in the circuit court, claiming Suntrup violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, section 407.010 et seq., RSMo 2016,[1] because Suntrup failed to install the appropriate anti-theft protection devices in their vehicles. Suntrup timely moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings because Consumers signed arbitration agreements requiring arbitration of all disputes.

Consumers conceded they signed arbitration agreements but claimed they were relieved of their obligation to arbitrate because Suntrup failed to register the arbitration agreements with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") as required by AAA rules. Accordingly, Consumers argued they were not required to submit their claims to arbitration and could proceed in the circuit court. Suntrup replied, asserting Consumers' arbitration agreements allowed for a choice of arbitrators, it had registered with the AAA, and any determination regarding arbitrability of a different state case in the circuit court is not binding in this case. See Martin v. HW Automotive, LLC, No. ED112165, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Mo. App. August 6, 2024).

The circuit court held a hearing on the motion to compel and entered a judgment denying Suntrup's motion to compel arbitration. Suntrup appeals pursuant to § 435.440.1(1).

* * *


"[Arbitration is a matter of contract." Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 67, 130 S.Ct. 2772, 177 L.Ed.2d 403 (2010). "The usual rules and canons of contract interpretation govern the subsistence and validity of an arbitration clause." Dunn Indus. Grp., Inc. v. City of Sugar Creek, 112 S.W.3d 421, 428 (Mo. banc 2003); see also Am. Exp. Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228, 233, 133 S.Ct. 2304 2309, 186 L.Ed.2d 417 (2013); Bridgecrest, 648 S.W.3d at 752 (applying contract principles to an arbitration dispute).

Outcome: Reversed and remanded.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: