After the California Supreme Court decided Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, class action waivers in arbitration agreements were on life support, with their supporters holding fast to the hope that some modern miracle would come along to resuscitate them. Then along came AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 113 S.Ct. 1740, and … Continue Reading
NLRB’s D.R. Horton Decision and Public Policy Cannot Undermine Concepcion – Morvant v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. A Northern District of California judge has held that neither the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) decision in D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 N.L.R.B. No. 184 (January 3, 2012), nor the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 101 et … Continue Reading
The Third Time is Not a Charm as the Second Circuit Again Holds Class Action Waivers Unenforceable The Second Circuit considered the validity of class action waivers for the third time in an antitrust action brought against American Express (“AMEX”) based upon the company’s Card Acceptance Agreement. And, despite intervening Supreme Court opinions, for the … Continue Reading
Another court has weighed in in favor of enforcing an arbitration agreement containing a class action waiver in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 1746 (2011). In Brown v. TrueBlue, Inc.pdf., Case No. 1:10-CV-0514 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 22, 2011), the plaintiffs were … Continue Reading
In a terse but well-reasoned decision, the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the grant of a motion to compel arbitration and enforced a class action waiver despite arguments that it was unenforceable under Minnesota law. The Appellate panel also considered whether cases sent to arbitration should be stayed rather than dismissed. In Green v. SuperShuttle International, … Continue Reading
The battle between California courts and the U.S. Supreme Court over arbitration agreements wages on. Though California courts frequently make perfunctory statements about the strong public policy in favor of arbitration agreements, these statements are undercut by the many cases in which the courts appear to bend over backwards to find arbitration agreements unconscionable or … Continue Reading
The United States Supreme Court held on June 16, 2011 that a federal court could not enjoin a state court from considering certification of a class unless it had previously denied certification under essentially the same standard AND the cases have the same parties. See Smith v. Bayer Corp.pdf, Case No. 09-1205 (June 16 2011). True, … Continue Reading
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s April 27th decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.pdf, Senator Al Franken (D-Minn) and others re-introduced legislation (S.987, H.R. 1873.pdf) that would forbid pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements in employment, consumer or civil rights disputes. The Concepcion opinion (reviewed in Greg Mersol’s April 27, 2011 post on this blog and in the … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court has now held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. section 2, preempts state laws that would condition arbitration agreements on the availability of class action arbitration procedures. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.pdf, 563 U.S. ____ (April 27, 2011). This new holding overturns prior holdings from California as well as other jurisdictions, and … Continue Reading