Legal Document

Cite as: 565 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MARMET HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC., ET AL. 11–391 v. CLAYTON BROWN CLARKSBURG NURSING HOME & REHABILITATION LLC, DBA CONTINUOUS 11–394 SHARON A. MARCHIO, EXECUTRIX ESTATE PAULINE VIRGINIA WILLETT ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS CERTIORARI TO APPEALS WEST Nos. and 11–394. Decided February 21, 2012 PER CURIAM. State federal courts must enforce the Federal Arbi- tration Act (FAA), 9 U.S. C. §1 et seq., with respect to all arbitration agreements covered by that statute. Here, Supreme Court of Appeals West Virginia, misreading disregarding precedents this interpreting FAA, did not follow controlling law implement- ing basic principle. The state court held unenforce- able predispute apply claims alleging personal injury or wrongful death against nursing homes. decision found FAA’s coverage be more limited than mandated Court’s previous cases. vacated. When has fulfilled its duty interpret law, a may contradict fail implement rule so established. See Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. 2 CENTER I This litigation involves three negligence suits homes in Virginia. were brought Clayton Brown, Jeffrey Taylor, Sharon Marchio. In each case, family member patient requiring ex- tensive care had signed an agreement home on behalf patient. relevant parts Brown’s case Taylor’s identical. contracts included clause parties arbitrate disputes, other col- lect late payments owed provision holding party filing arbitra- tion responsible for paying fee accordance Rules American Arbitration Association schedules. Marchio’s also but made no exceptions requirement mention fees. cases, who died sued court, alleg- caused injuries harm resulting death. A trial dismissed Brown Taylor based arbitrate. Virginia consolidated those cases Marchio’s, which was before issues. concerning “as matter public policy under admission adopted prior occurrence results death, shall enforced compel dispute concern- negligence.” Genesis Healthcare Corp., No. 35494 (W. Va., June 29, 2011), App. Pet. Cert. 11–391, pp. 85a–86a (hereinafter App.). considered whether 3 pre-empted FAA. unpersua- sive interpretation calling it “ten- dentious,” id., at 51a, “created from whole cloth,” 53a. It later concluded “Congress intend FAA be, any way, applicable only collaterally derive written evidences transaction affecting interstate commerce, particularly where service is practical necessity members public,” 84a. thus does pre-empt pub- lic court’s both incorrect inconsistent clear instruction Court. provides “written . contract evidencing transac- involving commerce settle contro- versy thereafter arising out such valid, irrevocable, enforceable, save upon grounds as exist equity revocation contract.” §2. statute’s text includes exception personal-injury wrongful-death claims. “requires bargain arbitrate.” Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. Byrd, 470 213, 217 (1985). “reflects emphatic favor arbitral resolution.” KPMG LLP Coc- chi, ___, ___ (2011) (per curiam) (slip op., 3) (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. Soler Chrysler- Plymouth, Inc., 473 614, 631 (1985); internal quota- marks omitted). As reaffirmed last Term, “[w]hen prohibits outright particular type claim, analysis straightforward: conflicting displaced FAA.” AT&T Mobility LLC Concep- 4 cion, 563 6–7). That resolves these Virginia’s prohibition cate- gorical prohibiting contrary terms ibid. also, e.g., Preston Ferrer, 552 346, 356 (2008) (FAA pre-empts granting commissioner exclusive jurisdiction decide issue agreed arbitrate); Mastrobuono Shearson Lehman Hutton, 514 52, 56 (1995) pre- empts judicial resolution punitive damages); Perry Thomas, 482 483, 491 (1987) state-law litigants provided forum wage dis- putes); Southland Keating, 465 1, 10 (1984) financial investment statute). II proposed “alternativ[e]” hold- clauses unconscionable. 89a–91a, 94a. 98a (not addressing question unenforceable reasons policy). unclear, however, what degree alternative influenced invalid, categor- ical discussed above, agreements. For example, discussion holding, unconscionable part because applies “clearly violates policy.” Id., 91a. 5 On remand, consider whether, absent general policy, are common principles spe- cific * petition certiorari granted. judgment vacated, remanded proceedings incon- sistent opinion. ordered.

Classification Label: 7