You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Smile Inc. Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Britesmile Management, Inc.

Citations: 2005 UT App 381; 122 P.3d 654; 534 Utah Adv. Rep. 18; 2005 Utah App. LEXIS 361; 2005 WL 2173821Docket: 20040614-CA

Court: Court of Appeals of Utah; September 9, 2005; Utah; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, BriteSmile Management, Inc. and BriteSmile, Inc. (collectively 'BriteSmile') appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration against Smile Inc. Asia Pte. Ltd. ('Smile Asia'). The dispute originated from a distributor agreement with an arbitration clause. Despite acknowledging the arbitration clause, BriteSmile engaged extensively in litigation, including filing motions and participating in discovery, without invoking the arbitration clause until later stages. The trial court ruled that BriteSmile had waived its right to arbitration, as its actions were inconsistent with the intent to arbitrate and prejudiced Smile Asia, which had incurred significant litigation expenses. The appellate court affirmed this decision, referencing Utah law which disfavors finding a waiver of arbitration rights without clear evidence. The court applied a two-part test: determining substantial litigation participation inconsistent with arbitration intent and resulting prejudice to the opposing party. BriteSmile's delay and litigation conduct contrasted with the precedent where timely assertion of arbitration rights preserved them. The court found BriteSmile's actions amounted to forum shopping, thus affirming the waiver of arbitration rights, with judges concurring. This case underscores the necessity for parties to assert arbitration rights promptly and consistently to avoid waiver.

Legal Issues Addressed

Participation in Litigation as Evidence of Waiver

Application: BriteSmile's substantial participation in litigation was deemed inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate, demonstrating a waiver of arbitration rights.

Reasoning: The record showed no expression of intent to arbitrate until more than two years after the original complaint, during which BriteSmile actively engaged in litigation through multiple motions, a counterclaim, joint scheduling orders, and extensive discovery activities.

Prejudice to the Opposing Party

Application: The court determined that Smile Asia would suffer prejudice if compelled to arbitrate after extensive litigation, supporting the finding of waiver.

Reasoning: Similarly, Smile Asia would experience prejudice if compelled to arbitrate after two years of litigation, having incurred substantial expenses in the process.

Standard for Waiver of Arbitration

Application: The Utah Supreme Court requires clear evidence of intentional disregard for arbitration rights, demonstrated by substantial litigation participation and resulting prejudice to the opposing party.

Reasoning: Utah law favors arbitration and presumes against finding waiver unless there is clear evidence of intentional disregard for the right to arbitrate.

Waiver of Right to Arbitrate

Application: The court found that BriteSmile waived its right to arbitrate by participating in litigation activities inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate.

Reasoning: The trial court ruled against BriteSmile’s motion to compel arbitration, determining that BriteSmile had waived its right to arbitrate.