Skip to main content

Berkeley Research Group, LLC v. Southern Advanced Materials, LLC

Tenn.January 23, 2026No. W2023-00720-SC-R11-CV
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Justice Dwight E. Tarwater
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal to Tennessee Supreme Court

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the trial court's confirmation of arbitration award, finding that Tennessee courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award when the parties agreed arbitration would occur in Pennsylvania. The court vacated and dismissed the petition to confirm the award.

Excerpt

This case addresses whether the Uniform Arbitration Act confers subject matter jurisdiction on Tennessee courts to confirm an arbitration award when the parties' arbitration agreement specified that arbitration would occur in another state. Berkeley Research Group, LLC and Southern Advanced Materials, LLC entered into a contract which provided that any dispute would be resolved by arbitration in Pennsylvania, not Tennessee. A dispute arose and the parties entered arbitration, which resulted in an award to Berkeley. Berkeley sought to confirm the arbitration award in Shelby County Chancery Court. The trial court confirmed Berkeley's arbitration award and entered judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that while the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction, it lacked personal jurisdiction over Southern. We find that Tennessee courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration reward when the parties agreed arbitration would occur in another state. As a result, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to confirm an award resulting from an arbitration the parties agreed would occur in Pennsylvania. We vacate the judgments of the lower courts and dismiss the petition to confirm the award.

What This Ruling Means

**The Dispute** Berkeley Research Group and Southern Advanced Materials had a business contract that required any disputes to be resolved through arbitration in Pennsylvania, not Tennessee. When a disagreement arose, they went to arbitration as agreed. Berkeley Research Group then tried to get a Tennessee court to officially confirm and enforce the arbitration decision, even though their contract specified Pennsylvania as the location for all arbitration matters. **The Court's Decision** The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled against Berkeley Research Group. The court found that Tennessee courts don't have the authority to confirm arbitration awards when the parties specifically agreed that arbitration would happen in another state. Since the contract clearly stated that arbitration must occur in Pennsylvania, Tennessee courts couldn't get involved in enforcing the results. The court dismissed the request to confirm the arbitration award. **What This Means for Workers** This ruling emphasizes how important it is to carefully read arbitration clauses in employment contracts. If your contract says disputes must be arbitrated in a specific state, that's likely where any enforcement actions will need to happen too. Workers should understand that the location specified in arbitration agreements can affect where they might need to pursue or defend legal matters, potentially making the process more complicated and expensive.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Derinda Carr v. Windham Professionals, Inc.
Tenn.Apr 2022

Appellant Derinda Carr challenges the trial court's finding her neck injury did not arise primarily "out of and in the course and scope of' her employment. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We agree with the trial court and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Win
Bethany Shelton v. Hobbs Enterprises, LLC
Tenn.Sep 2021

Bethany Shelton ("Employee") filed a petition for benefit determination against Hobbs Enterprises, LLC ("Employer") alleging an injury to her right shoulder suffered in a work- related accident on August 26, 2017. She sought temporary total, permanent partial, and continued medical benefits. Following the issuance of a dispute certification notice, Employer moved for summary judgment on the basis the only medical testimony, from the Employee's treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Sean Kaminsky, was insufficient as a matter of law to establish causation. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims (the "trial court") denied the motion and denied Employer's motion to reconsider. Employer sought an expedited appeal before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, but then sought and was granted a dismissal of that appeal. A trial was held, after which the trial court denied Employee's claim on the ground she had failed to meet her burden to establish her right shoulder injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment with Employer. Employee filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied. She appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims.

Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.