AT&T MOBILITY V. CONCEPCION
131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011)
NATURE OF THE CASE: AT&T (D) appealed a holding that is arbitration agreement with Concepcion (P) was unconscionable under California state law as it did not allow class arbitration.
FACTS: Concepcion (P) entered into an agreement for cellular telephones with AT & T Mobility LCC (D). The contract provided for arbitration of all disputes between the parties, but required that claims be brought in the parties' 'individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding.' Ps were not charged for the phones, but they were charged $30.22 in sales tax based on the phones' retail value. P filed a complaint against D alleging false advertising and fraud by charging sales tax on phones it advertised for free. D moved to compel arbitration under the terms of its contract. Ps opposed the motion, contending that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and unlawfully exculpatory under California law because it disallowed classwide procedures. D's motion to compel was denied. The court found that the arbitration provision was unconscionable because D had not shown that bilateral arbitration adequately substituted for the deterrent effects of class actions. The Ninth Circuit affirmed holding that the Discover Bank rule was not preempted by the FAA because that rule was simply 'a refinement of the unconscionability analysis applicable to contracts generally in California. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment