Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “arbitration”

11th Cir. Holds Lender’s Forum Selection and Class Action Waiver Clauses Unenforceable

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the denial of a lender’s motions to dismiss and to strike a complaint filed on behalf of a class of borrowers who entered into loan agreements with the lender and its affiliates. In so ruling, the Eleventh Circuit held that the loan agreements’ forum selection clause and class action waivers were unenforceable under Georgia’s Payday Lending Act and Industrial Loan Act, as enforcement would undermine the purpose and spirit of Georgia’s statutory scheme including to preserve class actions as a remedy. A copy of the opinion in Davis v.…

8th Cir. Affirms Denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration in FLSA Case Against Lender

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the denial of a lender’s motion to compel arbitration over a suit filed by a former employee alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In so doing, the Court held that the former employee’s mere review of the employee handbook, and the arbitration and delegation provisions therein, did not constitute acceptance of the relevant clauses, and without acceptance no valid contracts to arbitrate their disputes or delegate the decision to an arbitrator were formed. A copy of the opinion in Shockley v. PrimeLending is available at: …

NJ Supreme Court Holds Invalidity of Transaction as a Whole Does Not Negate Arbitration Agreement

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that where a plaintiff challenges the validity of a transaction as a whole and not specifically the arbitration agreement that is included as part of a transaction, the plaintiff must arbitrate their claims because an arbitration agreement is severable and enforceable, notwithstanding a plaintiff’s general claims about the invalidity of the transaction as a whole. Accordingly, the judgment of the appellate court was reversed and the trial court orders compelling arbitration were reinstated. A copy of the opinion in Goffe v. Foulke Management Corp. is available at:  Link to Opinion. The plaintiffs each purchased cars…

SCOTUS Holds Ambiguous Agreement Not Enough for Classwide Arbitration

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States  recently held that under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration. Accordingly, the contrary ruling of the Ninth Circuit was reversed and the matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. A copy of the opinion in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela is available at:  Link to Opinion. The defendant company sells light fixtures and related products.  In 2016, a hacker impersonating a company official tricked a company employee into…

1st Cir. Rejects Challenges to Arbitration of Putative Class Action

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of a putative class action lawsuit that challenged the company’s arbitration clause. The Court rejected the named plaintiff’s primary argument that the arbitration clause’s arbitration-fee-splitting arrangement was unconscionable and unenforceable, because the trial court was allowed to consider the defendant’s offer to pay for the full costs of arbitration, thus rendering the clause enforceable under Massachusetts’ Wage Act, because the potential costs of arbitration were less than the cost of potential recovery. A copy of the opinion in Bekele v. Lyft, Inc. is available at:  Link to Opinion. In…

Fla. App. Court (3rd DCA) Holds Monthly Text Messages with Link to Terms of Service Sufficient to Compel Arbitration

The District Court of Appeal for the Third District of Florida recently reversed a trial court’s order denying a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that monthly text messages with a hyperlink to the defendant’s terms of service provided the consumer with sufficient notice that disputes regarding his relationship with the defendant were subject to arbitration. A copy of the opinion in MetroPCS Communications, et al. v. Jorge Porter is available at:  Link to Opinion. A consumer filed a putative class action lawsuit against his cellular telephone provider alleging that it improperly charged the consumer and other customers sales tax on the…

7th Cir. Vacates $10 Million FLSA Award Against Mortgage Company

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently joined the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, in ruling that class or collective arbitrability is a gateway question that is presumptively for the court to decide, rather than the arbitrator. In so ruling, the Court vacated the trial court’s order enforcing a $10 million federal “wage and hour” Fair Labor Standards Act arbitration award against the defendant. A copy of the opinion in Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation is available at:   Link to Opinion. The plaintiff filed a putative class and collective action against her former employer.  She alleged…

7th Cir. Holds Debt Collector Waived Arbitration by ‘Gratuitous Delay’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a defendant waived its right to arbitrate due to its “gratuitous delay” in seeking arbitration, where it waited 13 months after the filing of the lawsuit before moving to compel arbitration, and that any showing of prejudice to the non-moving party was not required. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling denying a motion to compel arbitration. A copy of the opinion in Smith v. GC Services Limited Partnership is available at:   Link to Opinion. The plaintiff applied for and received a credit card from a bank.  The credit…

7th Cir. Holds Non-Cardholder Must ‘Directly Benefit’ to Be Bound by Cardholder Agreement

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that the minor child of a credit card account holder was not bound by the arbitration clause in the cardholder agreement because she did not become an authorized user of the account by using the credit card. The Seventh Circuit also held that the doctrine of estoppel did not bind the minor to the arbitration clause because the minor did not “directly benefit” from her parent’s use of the credit card. A copy of the opinion in AD v. Credit One Bank, NA is available at:  Link to Opinion. In…

11th Cir. Refuses to Compel Arbitration via ‘Court-Evicting’ Amendment

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a bank could not enforce an arbitration clause inserted into an amended customer account agreement during the pending litigation incident to the sale and acquisition of the bank, because the plaintiff was actively opposing arbitration and the bank failed to notify the plaintiff’s counsel and the court of the purportedly “court-evicting” amendment. In so ruling, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the bank “failed to demonstrate the requisite meeting of the minds to support a finding that the parties agreed through the February 2013 amendment to arbitrate their then-pending…

10th Cir. Affirms Refusal to Compel Arbitration as to Non-Signatory Third Parties

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration against non-signatory third-party beneficiaries who did not accept the benefits of the contract. A copy of the opinion in Jacks v. CMH Homes is available at:  Link to Opinion. In 2009, a buyer financed a mobile home purchase with a manufactured-home retail installment contract.  The contract contained an arbitration provision that purportedly extended to “all co-signors and guarantors … and any occupants of the manufactured home.” Five years later, the buyer and her family sued the home’s manufacturer and…

SCOTUS Holds Kentucky’s ‘Clear Statement Rule’ Violates Federal Arbitration Act

The Supreme Court of the United States recently concluded that Kentucky’s “clear-statement” rule violates the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by singling out arbitration agreements and treating them differently from other contracts. The Kentucky Supreme Court had held that the arbitration agreements at issue were invalid because the individuals who entered into the agreements did so under a power of attorney, and the powers of attorney at issue did not specifically entitle the representatives to enter into an arbitration agreement. The Kentucky Supreme Court reasoned that, because the Kentucky Constitution declares the rights of access to the courts and trial by jury…