Dan Ryan Builders, Inc. v. Norman Nelson, No. 11-1215 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 12, 2012.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1215 DAN RYAN BUILDERS, INCORPORATED, Petitioner - Appellant, v. NORMAN C. NELSON; ANGELIA NELSON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00076-JPB-JES) Argued: March 20, 2012 Decided: January 29, 2013 Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and Norman K. MOON, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Susan Renee Snowden, MARTIN & SEIBERT, LC, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Lawrence M. Schultz, BURKE, SCHULTZ, HARMAN & JENKINSON, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Paul B. Weiss, MARTIN & SEIBERT, LC, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: The procedural and factual background of this case is discussed in our prior published order, in which, pursuant to the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, W. Va. Code ยงยง 51-1A-1 through 51-1A-13, this Court certified to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia the following question: Does West Virginia law require that an arbitration provision, which appears as a single clause in a multi-clause contract, itself be supported by mutual consideration when the contract as a whole is supported by adequate consideration? Dan Ryan Builders, Inc. v. Nelson, 682 F.3d 327, 327 (4th Cir. 2012). The West Virginia answered this question. court accepted our request and Dan Ryan Builders, Inc. v. Nelson, No. 12-0592, 2012 WL 5834590 (W. Va. Nov. 15, 2012). The West Virginia court recognized that litigants, such as the plaintiffs in this case, often challenge the enforceability of arbitration clauses that do not impose arbitrate on both contracting parties. court noted, arbitration those clauses litigants on the equal to As the West Virginia frequently ground duties that the challenge such clauses lack consideration or lack mutuality of obligation. Id. at *6. In accord with the majority of courts that have addressed the issue, the West Virginia court held that West Virginia s law of contract formation only requires that a contract as a whole be supported by adequate consideration. 2 Id. at *2, 6. Therefore, here, a the single clause arbitration consideration. Id. at within clause, *2. a multi-clause does In not view of contract, require the separate West Virginia court s holding, the district court s contrary conclusion cannot stand. In its answer to our certified question, the West Virginia court further explained, however, that mutuality of obligation or a lack thereof properly may be considered when a court assesses whether a contract or term therein is unconscionable under West Virginia law. was careful to Id. at *7. emphasize that any The West Virginia court such review concerning unconscionability requires an inquiry that is case-specific, and cannot be conducted in a manner targeting arbitration provisions for disfavored treatment. Id. at *9. Nevertheless, under West Virginia s unconscionability doctrine, a court may decline to enforce a contract clause-such as an arbitration provision-if the obligations or rights created by the clause unfairly lack mutuality. In Id. the present case, the parties disputed whether the arbitration clause in this case was unconscionable under West Virginia law. Because the determination, decided in The district court did not rule on that issue. issue we the of unconscionability conclude first that this instance 3 by is a fact-specific issue is appropriately the district court. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the opinion of the West Virginia court. VACATED AND REMANDED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
