Two decisions within the past few days emphasize the limits on class action arbitration waivers, despite recent United States Supreme Court opinions that breathed new life into such provisions.  With these recent decisions, we see courts relying on both federal and state law concepts to invalidate arbitration provisions when the courts conclude that an individual plaintiff could not feasibly pursue arbitration. 

Vindication of Federal Rights.

The Second Circuit visited the issue for the third time in In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation, No. 06-1871-cv (2d Cir. Feb. 1, 2012).  Merchants there are pursuing Sherman Act antitrust claims against American Express, alleging that American Express improperly ties its non-premium credit cards to its premium charge card services.  Because charge card customers are much more desirable from the merchants’ perspective, American Express is able to charge higher processing fees for those transactions.  These plaintiffs allege that American Express forces merchants to also accept its credit cards and to pay higher processing fees for them even though the credit card customers tend to make smaller purchases.

In two earlier opinions, 554 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2009) and 634 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2011), the Second Circuit held that the arbitration provision in the merchants’ agreements with American Express was unenforceable.  Following the Supreme Court’s opinion in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), the Second Circuit asked for supplemental briefing on the topic.  Although Concepcion held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law that imposes particular restrictions on arbitration provisions, the Second Circuit held for a third time that American Express’ arbitration clause is unenforceable because it prevents an aggrieved party from vindicating a federal statutory right.

In this third opinion, the Second Circuit concluded that Supreme Court authority “leaves open the question presented on this appeal: whether a mandatory class action waiver clause is enforceable even if the plaintiffs are able to demonstrate that the practical effect of enforcement would be to preclude their ability to bring federal antitrust claims.”  [Slip Op. at 15]  These plaintiffs satisfied the Second Circuit that they would be precluded from doing so in individual arbitrations because individual damages (a mean of $5,300 and a maximum of $39,000) could not compare to the several hundred thousands of dollars needed for an expert economic analysis of liability and damages.  [Id. at 22]  Thus, “the only economically feasible means for plaintiffs enforcing their statutory rights is via a class action.”  [Id.]  It is not enough that the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, allows for treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and expenses.  A plaintiff must advance the expert costs and then must assume the risk of losing—a significant deterrent to pursuing civil antitrust claims in the court’s mind.  [Id. at 23]

Those plaintiffs relied on an economist’s declaration to establish the likely cost of the necessary analysis.  The court concluded that American Express did not seriously challenge that evidence, which amounted to a concession that an individual plaintiff could not reasonably pursue the claims, whether in court or arbitration.  [Id.]  Just as notable, the court’s “decision in no way relies upon the status of plaintiffs as ‘small’ merchants.  We rely instead on the need for plaintiffs to have the opportunity to vindicate their statutory rights.”  [Id. at 24]

Other courts, particular lower courts in the Second Circuit, have applied this vindication of federal right approach to other statutory claims, such as Title VII employment discrimination suits.  E.g., Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 2011 WL 2671813 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2011).  With the Second Circuit’s most recent opinion, expect such attacks on arbitration provisions to increase.  It will become more important to challenge the validity of an expert’s assertion of the costs of proceeding with individual arbitration—perhaps to the point of seeking Daubert hearings as part of this process.  While Concepcion and other Supreme Court opinions strengthen defendants’ positions regarding enforcing arbitration provisions, the law is by no means settled. 

Traditional Unconscionability.

On the other side of the country one day earlier, the Northern District of California relied on traditional unconscionability principles to invalidate an arbitration provision in Lau v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. CV 11-1940-MEJ (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2012).  That plaintiff bought a luxury car but had numerous mechanical problems with it.  Mercedes sought to compel arbitration when the plaintiff filed suit.  The court found the provision procedurally and substantively unconscionable. 

The contract contained paragraph in capital letters noting the plaintiff’s ability to take the contract to review it and that it contained an arbitration provision on the back.  The arbitration provision had a bold font heading and also was in capital letter.  [Slip Op. at 2]  The court found that procedural unconscionability existed because the dealership presented the contract on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.  It did not matter that the plaintiff signed next to a paragraph mentioning the arbitration provision on the back of the contract.  While the plaintiff negotiated the price (apparently exceeding $100,000), he “was never offered the opportunity to negotiate the inclusion or exclusion of specific pre-printed terms.”  [Id. at 12]

The court found substantive unconscionability because the plaintiff faced substantial expenses in arbitration that do not exist in litigation.  Those expenses include the arbitrator’s hourly fee and the administrative body’s fees.  [Id. at 13]  The provision also was unbalanced because it allowed for a de novo appeal to a three-member panel only if the award was $0 or in excess of $100,000.  The practical effect was to deny plaintiff an appeal right if he recovered less than his full reimbursement right of more than $100,000 but allowed Mercedes to appeal if plaintiff received that full recovery.  Of course, plaintiff also faced advancing more costs if he appealed any award.  [Id. at 14]

Courts frequently undertake this traditional unconscionability analysis to invalidate arbitration provisions.  Plaintiffs’ counsel are being more aggressive in attacking provisions on those grounds, including seeking discovery about a corporation’s experience in arbitration in hopes of showing that the deck is stacked against the consumer.  Thus, it is crucial to take care in drafting an arbitration provision, presenting it to the consumer/employee, and documenting those efforts well before the threat of suit arises.  Consider having the business advance the costs of the arbitration, forgoing seeking its fees (unless the claim against it is frivolous), and ensure that the clause treats the parties equally.    

The vanishing jury trial is perhaps one of the most important issues facing the civil justice system today.  Civil trials have declined in federal courts from 12% in 1984 to less than 1% in 2010.  Statistics from state courts, though more difficult to obtain, generally show the same trends.  The issue has been widely studied, and while the fact of the vanishing trial is clear, the reasons for the decline are less obvious.  Several theories have been advanced, ranging from a dramatic rise in case filings and underfunded court systems to the ever increasing cost of litigation and the success of alternative dispute resolution.  

Last week, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog wrote about a recent New York ethics opinion approving legal advertising on Groupon and other group coupon sites.  These services allow consumers to pay one price up front for a service that is more valuable. A restaurant, for example, may offer a $50 meal for $25 that is paid immediately. An attorney, like this one, for example, may offer to provide a will for $99.  New York wasn’t the first state to weigh in on the issue--South Carolina has, too--and it probably won’t be the last. 

On January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in the case of National Meat Association v. Harris, No. 10-224.  

In CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 10-948, the Court held that pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate claims under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) are valid and enforceable.  Although the CROA requires that consumers be informed of their “right to sue,” the Court held that this is simply “a colloquial method of communicating to consumers that they have the legal right, enforceable in court, to recover damages from credit repair organizations that violate the CROA.”  These provisions do not require that the action proceed in court, as opposed to in a arbitration.  Furthermore, the statute’s use of terms such as “action” and “court” in its liability provision do not require a judicial forum either.  The Court recognized that it was “utterly commonplace” for statutes to use such language.  In light of these points, the CROA’s non-waiver provision does not preclude arbitration.

Perhaps most significantly, the Court’s opinion emphasizes that if Congress had meant to prohibit arbitration agreements, it would have spoken much more clearly.  Citing several other federal statutes that expressly precluded predispute arbitration agreements, the Court found it “unlikely” that the use of “right to sue” and “action” signaled an intent to do the same in this context.

Linda Coberly is a partner in Winston & Strawn's litigation practice and serves as vice chair of the firm's appellate and critical motions practice group. She is also the author of DRI's Amicus brief filed in this case.  Contact Linda at lcoberly@winston.com.

A recent Seventh Circuit opinion indicates that plaintiffs' counsel in a class action suit that engages in misconduct will not likely be able to adequately represent the class.  In Creative Montessori Learning Centers v. Ashford Gear LLC, No. 11-8020 (7th Cir. Nov. 22, 2011), Judge Posner's opinion overturned the district court's class certification because the district court applied a standard that was too lenient for misconduct on the part of plaintiffs' counsel. 

The named plaintiff, Creative Montessori Learning Centers, sued Ashford Gear LLC for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227.  The Act provides that the recipient of an unsolicited fax can be compensated up to $1,500 for each fax.  There are 14,573 other members of the class who collectively claim to have received 22,222 unsolicited faxes. 

Plaintiffs' attorneys, attorneys from Bock and Hatch, specialize in bringing suits under the Act, but used some unethical tactics to initiate the suit.  The attorneys contacted a fax broadcasting company that faxes advertisements on behalf of advertisers.  Then the attorneys asked the broadcasting company for information about faxes it had sent – and promised to keep the information confidential.  But instead of keeping the information confidential, the attorneys used the information to drum up lawsuits.  The attorneys found violators of the Act and potential plaintiffs.  Notably, the attorneys found Montessori, the named plaintiff, and misleadingly told them that a class action already existed.     

This behavior prompted defense attorneys to argue that the class should not be certified because plaintiffs' attorneys behaved unethically and would not be able to adequately represent the class.  However, the district court applied an egregious misconduct standard, and found that the conduct was not egregious and certified the class.  On appeal, the Seventh Circuit applied a different standard. 

The Seventh Circuit emphasized the importance of ensuring that plaintiffs' counsel can adequately represent a class.  The court noted that class plaintiffs lack the knowledge and monetary stake to allow them to monitor their lawyers.  Therefore, courts have to take great care in ensuring that plaintiffs' counsel will fulfill their fiduciary duties.  The court then held that the district court erred by applying an egregious misconduct standard; rather, any misconduct on behalf of plaintiffs' counsel should create a serious doubt that plaintiffs' counsel is fit to represent a class.  The court then remanded the case back to the district court so the district court could determine whether the class should be certified. 

With this decision, the Seventh Circuit is leaving less room for unethical conduct on the part of plaintiffs' counsel in class action litigation.  It is a decision that will likely be welcomed by defense counsel and class plaintiffs alike. 

William F. Auther is a partner with an active trial practice in business litigation and Kelly M. McInroy is an associate in the Phoenix office of Bowman and Brooke LLP.  

It is well known that manufacturers do not have to make the safest possible products.  Rather, manufacturers are prohibited from making unreasonably dangerous products.  And one of the biggest factors in determining whether or not a product is unreasonably dangerous is the existence of a feasible alternative design.  Concerning for manufacturers though, the First Circuit just upheld a verdict against a manufacturer even though the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a feasible alternative design.    

In Osorio v. One World Tech., Inc., No. 10-1824 (1st Cir. Oct. 5, 2011), the plaintiff sued the maker of a table saw after he cut his arm while using the saw.  The plaintiff argued that the saw should have contained a mechanism that stops and retracts the blade when the blade comes into contact with flesh.  To bolster this argument, the plaintiff brought the inventor of the mechanism to testify on his behalf. 

The manufacturer argued that the mechanism is not a feasible alternative design.  The mechanism makes the saw larger and heavier, which would substantially change the use of the light, portable saw.  Also, the mechanism has a tendency to retract when the blade gets wet, meaning that it cannot be used outside.   Further, each time the blade retracts, the blade must be replaced.  Additionally, the mechanism makes the $179 saw almost twice as expensive, adding $150 to the retail price.  It is no surprise then that none of the major saw manufacturers use the mechanism. 

Even after hearing all of this information, the jury found that the saw was defective and awarded the plaintiff $1.5 million.  The manufacturer appealed, arguing that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a feasible alternative design.  On appeal, the First Circuit determined that a plaintiff does not have to prove the existence of a feasible alternative design to win a design defect claim.  Rather, the existence of a feasible alternative design is just one factor in the "unreasonably dangerous" determination.  As such, the court upheld the jury's verdict. 

If you're shaking your head, you're not alone.  While this case may not sit well with manufacturers, at least it provides a reminder that they should think twice before trying design defect cases in states where plaintiffs do not have to prove the existence of a feasible alternative design.   

William F. Auther is a partner with an active trial practice in product liability and business litigation and Kelly M. McInroy is an associate in the Phoenix office of Bowman and Brooke LLP.  

Duty of Loyalty in the Employment Context

Jamie Oliver, a chef and a child advocate focused on ensuring kids receive proper nutrition through their school lunch programs as well as at home, has a television show, Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution, showing how he changes eating habits in school districts (this season he is in Los Angeles).  In each episode, he creates a visual showing the terrible foods kids are putting in their bodies.  It’s one thing to tell kids (or their parents) that fast food and processed food is bad for them, it is quite another to create a visual showing how bad it is, and creating such a powerful visual that it convinces those kids, their parents and the audience watching the show (including myself) how bad those foods are.  In a recent episode, he filled a family’s house with all the fast food they consume in a year.  Every square inch of furniture and floor was covered.  In another episode, he filled a school bus with sugar to show how much sugar the school board permitted in the kids lunch meals over a year.  It was powerful images like those that made folks change their minds and change their behavior.

When preparing for trial, we can take a page out of Jamie’s book, and think about what visuals (whether a photograph, a diagram, an animation, or some other representation) that encapsulates our theme and does so in such a powerful manner that the image we create carries through the trial, into the deliberation room and turns the jurors’ hearts and minds toward our view-point and toward our position.  Keep a file folder in your office drawer where you include pictures, images and ideas you clip from magazines and newspapers.  These images may later serve you at trial.

Being that it is Monday, my partner Craig Salner has his weekly tip for young lawyers.  This week he discusses the importance of getting involved with social networking.  You can find his post at http://csalner.wordpress.com/.

The Supreme Court heard argument on November 7 in Zivotofsky v. Clinton, No. 10-699, a case involving the “political question” doctrine and the scope of the President’s authority over the conduct of foreign relations.

In 2002, as part of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Congress enacted Section 214, entitled “United States Policy with Respect to Jerusalem as the Cpaital of Israel.”  Subsection 214(d) provides that, for purposes of issuing a passport to a United States citizen born in Jerusalem, the Secretary of State, upon request, must record the citizen’s place of birth as “Israel.”  In a statement issued at the time he signed the bill, the President took the position that Section 214 is merely advisory because, if it is instead directory, Section 214 would impermissibly infringe upon the President’s constitutional authority to formulate the United States’ position on the recognition to be given to foreign states.

Menachem Zivotofsky, who was born in Jerusalem in 2002 to U. S. citizens, applied through his mother for a passport, requesting that the place of birth be listed as “Jerusalem, Israel.”  The State Department responded that its policy precluded listing “Israel” as Zivotofsky’s birthplace, and issued a passport listing the place of birth as “Jerusalem.”  Menachem, through his parents, then filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking an order compelling the State Department to comply with Section 214(d).  Both the district court and the Court of Appeals held that the issues presented by Zivotofsky’s action raised non-justiciable political questions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider both the political question and whether Section 214 is an unconstitutional infringement of the President’s authority.

During oral argument, Zivotofsky’s attempt to defend Section 214 met with skepticism.  Zivotofsky took the position that Congress has authority to legislate in the area of foreign policy, and that Congress acted appropriately in concluding the designation on a passport of “Jerusalem, Israel” as an American citizen’s birthplace would do no harm to U. S. foreign policy.

However, Chief Justice Roberts, and Associate Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Scalia, Sotomayor and Kagan, all expressed doubt that Congress could legislate in this area without encroaching upon the President’s authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States.  As Justice Sotomayor put it:

“[W]hat entitles Congress to trench on a presidential power that has been exercised virtually since the beginning of the country?”

The Court was more receptive to the Solicitor General’s argument that the President’s authority over foreign affairs, including the extent to which foreign governments are recognized, is exclusive, and that Section 214 necessarily infringes upon that authority.  Justice Breyer suggested that the Court might want to abstain from entering this controversy between the legislative and executive branches by upholding the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that this case involves a non-justiciable political question. However, Justices Kennedy and Sotomayor suggested that the Court should reach the merits of the controversy in order th eliminate uncertainty concerning the allocation of responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs.

A decision in this case is expected by the end of the current Supreme Court term.

David Axelrad is an attorney with Horvitz & Levy in Los Angeles.  Contact David here.