ILNews

SCOTUS mulling the future of class-action suits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Defense and plaintiffs attorneys alike have their eyes on the Supreme Court of the United States, which has before it a case that some say could spell the end to class-action lawsuits in the name of contractual arbitration.

The nation’s highest court is considering AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, No. 09-893, a case that comes from California and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The issue is whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts states from allowing class arbitration or litigation as a part of an arbitration agreement. Dozens of amicus parties have filed briefs and the SCOTUS heard arguments today, meaning they’ll likely issue a decision at some point before the term ends in June 2011.

In this case, the consumers  - Liza and Vincent Concepcion - sued the phone giant after entering into a purchase agreement for cell phone service in California, claiming that AT&T fraudulently charged tax on a “free” phone despite advertising otherwise. The Concepcions sued on behalf of a class of consumers who’d also allegedly overpaid, but part of a customer service agreement they’d signed included an arbitration clause that requires the customer and company to arbitrate any disputes arising from the agreement.

When the Concepcions in 2006 filed the suit in the Southern District of California, AT&T argued the suit shouldn’t have been allowed because only arbitration could be used to resolve the dispute. The District Court held that the arbitration clause was unconscionable under that state’s law and wasn’t enforceable because it didn’t allow for class-action litigation, and the 9th Circuit affirmed on the grounds that the Federal Arbitration Act didn’t preempt California law on unconscionability.
Now, the justices are considering the issue and some national legal experts have opined that the justices may rule in AT&T’s favor. As a result, that could lead to significant changes throughout the country.

The National Workrights Institute argues that a court decision in AT&T’s favor could mean that employment cases wouldn’t be able to use class-action litigation and that wide-spread discriminatory practices would become more common because of the arbitration requirements. The Institute’s brief spells out how it fears attorneys wouldn’t be willing to take these and similar cases without the assurance of adequate attorneys’ fees that can come from class-action suits. Similar thoughts are echoed by other groups, such as the NAACP.

AT&T and some amicus parties, such as the Defense Research Institute, argue that the court striking down its arbitration clause would distort contract law and also signal a willingness to interfere with corporate operations. Millions of parties enter into arbitration agreements annually, and this case could determine what might happen with those agreements inside or out of court.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT