Published: June 27, 2013
Tags: antitrust, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, common law, consumer protection, effective vindication, Federal Arbitration Act, mandatory arbitration, U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON – The chasm between civil defense attorneys who extol the virtues of mandatory arbitration agreements and members of the plaintiffs’ bar who say the pacts strip consumers of their right to redress was widened by the U.S. Supreme Court last week.
WASHINGTON — Plaintiffs cannot avoid a contractual waiver of class arbitration on the ground that the cost of individually arbitrating their claims exceeds their potential recovery, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a divided ruling.
WASHINGTON – Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court cast a critical eye on classwide arbitration proceedings, holding in 2010 that the Federal Arbitration Act only authorizes class arbitration in cases in which the parties consented to it, lawyers and their clients were left with a crucial question: What constitutes consent?
It’s a question that split the circuits, but an answer seemed imminent when the justices took up and heard arguments in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, which considered whether class arbitration is allowed under the Act when a contract is silent on its availability.
Some lawyers referred to the case as the “‘Son of Stolt-Nielsen,” referring to the court’s 2010 decision in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., which established the consent requirement.
But the decision in Sutter turned out to be more of a stepchild.
WASHINGTON — In a ruling that boosts the authority of arbitrators to interpret crucial contract provisions, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an arbitrator’s decision to allow a plaintiff to bring a class-wide arbitration proceeding when the parties did not expressly agree to allow classwide relief.
WASHINGTON – In the latest in a series of cases considering the enforceability of mandatory arbitration clauses that bar class proceedings, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether federal common law prohibits such agreements in some circumstances.
A debt adjuster could not enforce a binding arbitration clause in its service contract when sued by a customer for violating state consumer protection law, the Washington Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.
A “poison pill” in an automobile purchase contract did not render an arbitration clause in the agreement unenforceable, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in affirming judgment.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court failed to follow the substantive law of the Federal Arbitration Act when it declared the noncompetition agreements in two employment contracts null and void, rather than leaving that determination to the arbitrator in the first instance, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a per curiam decision.
A nursing home sued for wrongful death could not enforce an arbitration clause in its admissions contract, the New Mexico Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming judgment.
Parties to a business contract could not enforce an arbitration clause against another party to the agreement who filed for bankruptcy protection in response to being sued for fraud, the 9th Circuit has ruled in affirming judgment.