Document: 538 U.S. 401 PACIFICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.v.BOOK AL. No. 02-215. Supreme Court of United States. Argued February 24, 2003. Decided April 7, Respondent physicians filed suit alleging that managed-health-care organizations, including petitioners, violated, inter alia, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by failing to reimburse them for health-care services they had provided patients covered organizations' plans. Petitioners moved compel arbitration. The District refused arbitration RICO claims on ground clauses in parties' agreements prohibited awards "punitive damages," hence an arbitrator lacked authority award treble damages under RICO. Accordingly, court deemed unenforceable with respect those claims. Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Held: It is unclear whether actually prevent from awarding This Court's cases have placed different statutory provisions points along spectrum between purely compensatory strictly punitive awards. In particular, has repeatedly acknowledged RICO's treble-damages provision remedial nature, it not clear parties intended term "punitive" encompass Since does know how will construe limitations, questions render agreement courts or arbitrators decide enforceability first instance are unusually abstract. would be premature address them; proper course Pp. 403-407. 285 F. 3d 971, reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, which all other Members joined, except THOMAS, who took no part consideration decision case. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. William E. Grauer argued cause petitioners. With him briefs were Christopher R. J. Pace, James W. Quinn, Jeffrey S. Klein, Edward Soto, Gregory Coleman. Joe Whatley, Jr., respondents. brief Charlene P. Ford B. Tilghman, Jr.* JUSTICE SCALIA Court. 1 this case, we asked respondents can compelled arbitrate arising (RICO), 18 U. C. § 1961 et seq., notwithstanding fact may construed limit arbitrator's statute. 2 * Respondents members a group against organizations petitioners PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc., Operations, Inc. (collectively, PacifiCare), United-Healthcare, Group United). These alleged defendants unlawfully failed defendants' health They brought causes action RICO, Employee Retirement Income Security 1974 (ERISA), federal state prompt-pay statutes, as well breach contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit. re: Managed Care Litigation, 132 Supp. 2d 989, 992 (SD Fla. 2000). 3 Of particular concern here, arbitration, arguing their contracts required these disputes, Ibid. opposed motion that, because prohibit damages, see App. 107, 147, 168, 212, could obtain "meaningful relief" statute, authorizes 1964(c). See Paladino v. Avnet Computer Technologies, 134 1054, 1062 (CA11 1998) (holding where limitation prevents plaintiff obtaining claim, claim). 4 denied petitioners' request 2d, at 1007. concluded given limitations relevant contracts, was, indeed, "faced potential situation ..., able meaningful relief allegations violations forum." Id., 1005. found respondents' affirmed "for reasons set forth [the Court's] comprehensive opinion," Humana 973 (2002), granted certiorari, 537 946 (2002). II 5 argue question "arbitrability," should been decided arbitrator, rather than court, instance. also claim even if one arbitrability, therefore properly within purview time, issue do require invalidation agreements. Either way, contend, lower We conclude us time. 6 Our Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, A. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 528 (1995), supplies analytic framework assessing ripeness dispute. Vimar, dealt bill lading concerning shipment goods Morocco Massachusetts. Upon receipt goods, purchaser discovered damaged, and, its insurer (Vimar), shipper. shipper sought relying choice-of-law disputes out governed Japanese law resolved through before Tokyo Maritime Arbitration Commission. countered clause violated Carriage Goods Sea (COGSA), 46 1300 was unenforceable. S., 531-532. claimed "there guarantee foreign apply COGSA"; likely rules liability might less what COGSA; violate "[t]he central [COGSA] 3(8) ... terms relieve carrier obligations diminish legal duties specified Act." 539. 7 Notwithstanding Vimar's insistence policy embodied COGSA, declined reach held least initially, enforceable. "At interlocutory stage," explained, "it established petitioner's petitioner receive diminished protection result. COGSA applies own force so another lading, controls." 540. further emphasized "mere speculation which, depending construction reduce obligations, itself lessen 3(8)," nor did provide adequate basis upon declare 541 (emphases added). "[w]hatever merits comparative reading counterpart, premature." 8 case bar arrives similar posture. Two four shall awarded [in arbitration]," 147; provides any exemplary id., 212; extra contractual kind, ...," 168. insist, agreed, 1000-1001, 1005, preclude think neither our precedents ambiguous make clear. 9 Thus, Vermont Agency Natural Resources States ex rel. Stevens, 529 765, 784 (2000), characterized False Claims Act, 31 §§ 3729-3733, "essentially nature." Brunswick Corp. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, 429 477, 485 (1977), hand, explained Clayton 15 15, "is essence provision." Likewise American Soc. Mechanical Engineers, Hydrolevel Corp., 456 556, 575 (1982), noted "the antitrust private [which allows damages] created primarily remedy victims violations." (Emphasis added.) And earlier Term, Cook County Chandler, ante, 130, stated important realize side, serving purposes addition objectives." Indeed, contained nature. Holding Malley-Duff & Associates, 483 143, 151 (1987), "[b]oth designed economic injury providing recovery costs, attorney's fees." Shearson/American Express McMahon, 482 220, 241 (1987) note "remedial function" provision. 10 light law's treatment uncertainty surrounding intent "punitive,"1 application disputed language is, say least, doubt. instructs not, speculation" interpret manner casts into doubt, take ourselves antecedent ambiguity resolved.2 541. short, since As judgment Appeals reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 11 ordered. 12 THOMAS Notes: Briefs ofamici curiae urging reversal Chamber Commerce Evan M. Tager, Miriam Nemetz, Robin Conrad; National Association Manufacturers al. Miguel Estrada, Andrew Tulumello, Jan Amundson, Quentin Riegel, Stephanie Kanwit; Washington Legal Foundation Landau, Ashley Parrish, Daniel Popeo, Richard Samp. amici affirmance Consumer Advocates Craig Jordan; Public Citizen, Scott L. Nelson Brian Wolfman; Trial Lawyers Justice Paul Bland, Jr. Contrary contention, prohibition Dr. Manual Porth's contract "extracontractual" likewise ambiguous. mean, it, contract. Brief 20-21. But only mean cannot noneconomic such mental-anguish damages. D. Dobbs, Law Remedies: Damages-Equity-Restitution 12.1(1), p. (2d ed. 1993) ("Punitive mental anguish thus considered `extra-contractual,' usually pure cases") If raising "gateway" then appropriate answer just Term phrase `question arbitrability' limited scope."Howsam Dean Witter Reynolds, 79, 83 "found [question arbitrability] applicable kind narrow circumstance contracting expected gateway matter, thought agreed so, consequently, reference dispute avoids risk forcing matter arbitrate." 83-84. Given presumption favor Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital Mercury Constr. 460 1, 24-25 (1983), preliminary here arbitrability.

Category: 7