SCOTT V. CINGULAR WIRELESS 160 Wash.2d 843 (2007) CASE BRIEF

SCOTT V. CINGULAR WIRELESS

160 Wash.2d 843 (2007)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Scott (Ps), customers of a wireless telephone service, sought damages from the service provider on a claim that they were overcharged up to around $45 per month for unlawfully imposed long distance and/or out-of-network roaming charges. The trial court entered an order compelling arbitration.

FACTS: Ps purchased cellular telephones and calling plans from Cingular (D). The contracts were all form contracts with an arbitration agreement. The arbitration clause prohibited consolidation of cases, class actions, and class arbitration. D retained the right to unilaterally revise the agreement and, in July 2003, did so. It did so and the revised arbitration clause still prohibited class action and specified that arbitration would be conducted according to AAA rules. D would pay the filing, administrator, and arbitration fees unless the customer's claim was found to be frivolous; and D would reimburse the customer for reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred for the arbitration (provided that the customer recovered at least the demand amount); and that the arbitration would take place in the county of the customer's billing address. It also removed limitations on punitive damages. Ps' suit asserts that they were improperly billed for 'roaming' calls. Ps filed a class action suit. D moved to compel individual arbitration. Ps argued that the class action waiver is substantively and procedurally unconscionable and unenforceable. Ps assert that the agreement is overly one-sided because it is inconceivable that D would bring a class action suit against its customers. Experts explained that the claims against D 'are too small and too complex factually and legally' to be adjudicated separately. The trial court granted D's motion. It held that D's contract is a contract of adhesion, but it is not sufficiently complex, illegible, or misleading to be deemed procedurally unconscionable. The court also found no substantive unconscionability. This appeal resulted.

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

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner