CHICAGO (Legal Newsline) – A major car company accused of selling vehicles with defective paint appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration in an ongoing class action lawsuit against it and a dealership May 16.
Defendants Nissan North America Inc. and Infiniti of Lisle Inc. are appealing the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
They are represented by Erin Vaughn of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP in Chicago.
The defendants initially requested in September 2017 for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division to compel plaintiff John Anglin and the class to arbitration after Anglin refused. The defendants allege Anglin's refusal violated the sales agreement. The defendants also asked to stay the litigation.
Anglin represents a class of individuals suing the defendants over claims the 2011 Infiniti QX56 he purchased from Infinity of Lisle has a defect that leads to peeling paint.
In the September 2017 motion, the defendants stated Anglin signed the simple interest retail installment contract – Illinois, that “allows either party to choose to have disputes decided by arbitration.”
The defendants stated the court should grant both Nissan and Infiniti of Lisle’s motion to compel and stay litigation considering the Federal Arbitration Act and the sales agreement both require arbitration in the allegations against Infiniti of Lisle.
They added an arbitrator is the best party to settle the ongoing and continuing legal matter and requested the lawsuit should be stayed until the outcome of arbitration is completed according to FAA regulations.
Still, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the Eastern Division denied the motion May 9.
"As defendant acknowledges, the Illinois Appellate Court has rejected the equitable estoppel and agency theories on which it argues otherwise," Judge Elaine Bucklo wrote, "and the authorities and arguments on which defendant relies do not persuade me that the Supreme Court of Illinois would hold otherwise."