Performance Unlimited, Inc. v. Questar Publishers, Inc.

52 F.3d 1373 | Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | 1995

remandedCited 183 timesFLAGSHIPTexas
View on Court Website

What This Case Means for Subcontractors

Performance Unlimited sued Questar Publishers over unpaid royalties under a licensing agreement that required arbitration as the sole remedy. The district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to preserve royalties during arbitration. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that courts can grant preliminary injunctions to maintain the status quo pending arbitration when standard legal requirements are met. This matters to subcontractors because it means you can ask a court to protect your payment rights while disputes go to arbitration, rather than waiting months or years without payment.

Key Takeaways

  • If your contract requires arbitration, you can still ask a court for a preliminary injunction to preserve payment or performance obligations while arbitration proceeds
  • Courts will grant emergency relief (like payment orders) during arbitration if you meet the standard four-factor test: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest
  • Don't assume mandatory arbitration clauses prevent you from getting court protection—arbitration and preliminary injunctions can work together

District court erred as a matter of law denying preliminary injunctive relief due to mandatory arbitration.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1995

Frequently Asked Question

If my contract says disputes must go to arbitration, can I still ask a court to order the other party to pay me while we arbitrate?

Yes. Courts can issue preliminary injunctions to preserve payment obligations during arbitration if you show you're likely to win, you'll suffer irreparable harm without the payment, and the balance of fairness favors you. This prevents the arbitration process from becoming meaningless because you're unpaid for months.

Related Cases

Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.

2013reversed

Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy

2002voided

Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.

Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit

2004enforced

A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.

General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.

2001voided

The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.

Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase

1992enforced

An arbitrator's decision is generally not reviewable for errors of fact or law, with limited exceptions for fraud, corruption, exceeding powers, or procedural unfairness.

Rory v. Continental Insurance

2005enforced

Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.