Mandatory Arbitration Archives - Page 3 of 3 - Stoll Berne | Attorneys | Class-Action, Securities, IP, Real Estate, Business Litigation

Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in AT&T v. Concepcion, which I have mentioned frequently on this blog, companies have sought to avoid class actions by requiring consumers and employees to arbitrate their disputes individually.

In Connecticut, a Comcast subscriber had filed a class action in 2009 accusing the firm of violating U.S. antitrust laws by unlawfully bundling digital voice service with a modem. The complaint alleged subscribers had no choice but to pay a rental fee for the modem. Continue reading “Connecticut Federal Judge rejects motion to compel arbitration of antitrust claim”

I previously posted an article about a class action filed by a former Perkins Coie attorney seeking to assert claims on behalf of a class of employees seeking to recover business expenses. A federal judge has now ruled that the claim belongs in arbitration, and he dismissed the case.

Harold DeGraff sued Perkins Coie in federal court in San Francisco for himself and a purported class, claiming he was an employee who was wrongfully made to pay some expenses. Continue reading “Class action against Perkins Coie blocked by arbitration clause”

Google and SuperPoke! Pets developer Slide Inc. convinced a federal judge that arbitration was the right path for a lawsuit accusing them of shuttering customers’ access to “hundreds or even thousands of dollars” of virtual pet items.

Buyers claimed Google illegally shut down the social game SuperPoke! Pets, developed and launched by Slide in 2008. The online game allowed users to adopt, care for and interact with virtual pets. Basic access was free, and players bought toys, gifts and habitats with virtual “gold” for their four-legged, pixelated friends. Continue reading “Virtual pet class action against Google wiped out by arbitration clause”

The Florida Supreme Court held oral argument in May in a case that could test the reach of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 decision on class arbitration waivers in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

In McKenzie Check Advance of Florida v. Wendy Betts, SC11-514, the plaintiff relied on factual evidence in an attempt to prove that the lack of a class action device has made it impossible for her to obtain legal representation to pursue her claims in arbitration. Continue reading “Florida Supreme Court to determine whether an arbitration clause can be held invalid”

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a government agency looking “to make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans,” recently announced the launch of a public inquiry into how consumers and financial services companies are affected by arbitration and arbitration clauses. Through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Congress requires the CFPB to study this topic and gives the CFPB the power to issue regulations for the protection of consumers. Continue reading “CFPB to investigate consumer impact of arbitration”

U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Laporte in San Francisco, California, rejected as premature Charles Schwab & Co.’s challenge to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) ban on class action waivers. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, No. 3:12-CV-00518 (N.D. Cal., Hon Elizabeth D. LaPorte). Judge LaPorte dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, finding Schwab had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies before filing suit against FINRA. The federal action followed a disciplinary action filed by FINRA against Schwab on February 1, 2012, alleging that Schwab had violated FINRA rules by seeking to impose mandatory arbitration on Schwab brokerage customers. Schwab countered that such mandatory arbitration clauses were lawful and enforceable in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. You can see a copy of the opinion at this link: Charles Schwab v. FINRA – Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

On May 22, 2012, United States District Judge Anna Brown ordered that Tina and Gary Willis may not pursue any of their claims against Debt Care USA in court. Willis v. Nationwide, et al., 3:11-CV-430-BR (Opinion and Order, 5/22/2012, Docket #102). Plaintiffs are evaluating whether or not to appeal the ruling.

The National Labor Relations board announced it is charging 24 Hour Fitness USA Inc. with violating federal law by insisting all employment-related disputes be resolved by individual arbitration. In a statement issued April 30, the NLRB said the San Ramon, California-based company, which operates fitness centers across the country, requires employees to agree in writing as a condition of employment to forego any rights to collective or class action lawsuits or arbitrations. This violates the National Labor Relations Act, according to the complaint issued by the agency’s San Francisco regional office. Continue reading “NLRB sues 24 Hour Fitness for seeking to enforce class action ban”

The Eleventh Circuit on Thursday ordered members of a putative class action alleging SunTrust Banks Inc. hit them with exorbitant overdraft fees must take their case to arbitration, overturning a lower court ruling in the broader multidistrict litigation over overdraft fees.

The Eleventh Circuit found that under Georgia law the arbitration clause was not unconscionable.

A federal judge in California has denied a prominent debt servicer’s motion to compel arbitration of a class action filed by a California woman who says the company and its affiliates failed to settle her credit card debts as promised.

Plaintiff Heather Newton, representing the class, says defendant American Debt Services committed to settle her debts for half the balance owed.

But, Ms. Newton says, the company and its three affiliates kept a hefty portion of her fees, allowed her to retrieve only about half of the funds to pay a bank, and gave her a $70 refund. Continue reading “Motion to Compel arbitration tossed in American Debt class action”

The judge to whom the MDL panel sent all the Toyota unintended acceleration cases to, Judge Selna, ruled tentatively that Toyota Motor Corp. can’t force named plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit over alleged losses from unintended sudden acceleration to arbitrate their claims rather than proceed to trial.

U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, California, said in a tentative ruling yesterday that Toyota waived its right to compel arbitration for 15 of the 20 plaintiffs and that, for the remaining five, the carmaker wasn’t a party to the arbitration agreements between the plaintiffs and the Toyota dealers. A hearing is scheduled February 27 in federal court in Santa Ana, where Toyota’s lawyers may try to persuade the judge to change his decision. Continue reading “Judge Selna rejects Toyota’s attempt to force automobile buyer’s claims to arbitration”

The Second Circuit reaffirmed its decision in In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation, 634 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2011) (Amex II) that the class action waiver provision contained in the contracts between American Express and merchants is unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), because enforcement of the clause would as a practical matter preclude any action seeking to vindicate the statutory rights asserted by the plaintiffs. The Second Circuit ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent opinion in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion did not alter its analysis. In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation (Amex III) (2d Cir. Feb. 1, 2012).

The Second Circuit has now issued three opinions on this question, necessitated by recent Supreme Court pronouncements. In Amex I, 554 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2009), the court considered the enforcement of a mandatory arbitration clause in a commercial contract that also contained a class action waiver and determined that it was unenforceable. The court reasoned that the high costs of litigating an antitrust claim ruled out individual claims and meant that without a class action, plaintiffs would have no remedy. Continue reading “Second Circuit rejects class action waiver in American Express case”

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. (“FINRA”) and The Charles Schwab Corporation are engaged in a legal fight over whether a brokerage firm can avoid customer class-action claims by forcing all disputes into FINRA arbitration forums.

In a complaint filed against Schwab on February 1, FINRA claims that the brokerage is violating rules by including in arbitration agreements sent to almost 7 million customers a provision requiring investors to waive their rights to bring or participate in class actions against the firm. Continue reading “FINRA and Charles Schwab lock horns over class action waivers”

In an 8-1 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood that an agreement providing for arbitration of claims under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq., was enforceable. In so doing, the Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had held that including “You have the right to sue” in the CROA’s mandatory pre-contract disclosures set out in section 1679c (a) evidenced a “clear []” right to bring CROA claims in court, and could not be waived under the CROA’s non-waiver provision in section 1679f (a). Continue reading “US Supreme Court favors corporations over consumers again”

Judge King denied Wells Fargo’s motion to compel arbitration in the putative class action we have pending before him in MDL proceedings in the Southern District of Florida. The account agreements issued by Wells Fargo provided for permissive arbitration. That means if one party files in court, the other party has to immediately demand arbitration. These cases were filed in 2008, but Wells Fargo did not seek arbitration until April 27, 2011.

Further, Judge King had set a deadline in 2009 for Wells Fargo to file non-merit motions like motions to compel arbitration. Wells Fargo ignored this deadline.

The court recognized that the parties have done dozens of depositions across the country and have reviewed thousands of documents. This is a very good result for potential class members.

The court’s opinion can be found here: Wells Fargo Overdraft MDL.

I previously noted on this blog that a national class action had been filed against Debt Care USA by Tina and Gary Willis. On October 24, 2011, Magistrate Janice Stewart granted in part Debt Care’s motion to compel arbitration of the two state law claims brought against Debt Care. However, the court ruled that the arbitration could not take place in California as the arbitration clause required, but instead must occur in Oregon. The court denied Debt Care’s motion to compel arbitration of the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act claim on which Tina and Gary Willis seek to recover a refund of all fees paid by them, as well as all class members across the country. The court ruled that the CROA claim should be stayed until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on another CROA case pending before it – the Greenwood case. The plaintiffs are considering whether to appeal the ruling to an Article III judge.

Magistrate Janice Stewart denied the Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by another defendant, Global Client Solutions. The Magistrate found that Global Client Solutions had not disclosed the arbitration provision prior to the time Tina and Gary Willis entered into the contract with Global Client Solutions.