Sign up before Midnight to watch our video,
“Biggest Ponzi Scheme in U.S. History to Crash,”
and get our daily e-letter Investment Contrarians.
We respect your privacy!
We will never rent/sell your e-mail address.
That’s a promise! And you can opt out at any time.
Contracts professors, policymakers, consumer groups and others have become particularly interested in another post-AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion case.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently agreed to an en banc rehearing
of Kilgore v. Keybank, 673 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2012). The issue in this case is whether Concepcion precludes
courts from preserving judicial access for public injunctions under
state consumer protection statutes by invoking the public policy
exemption from the Federal Arbitration Act's ("FAA") mandate that courts
enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms. The en banc hearing is set for some time in December of this year.
The case is important on many levels. It raises fundamental questions about the reach of FAA preemption in the wake of Concepcion, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the FAA preempted courts from using California unconscionability law to strike a class relief waiver and order class arbitration. Moreover, the case implicates states' power to protect individuals' access to meaningful injunctive relief in order to enforce and protect public rights under state statutes, such as consumer protection statutes.
The case is important on many levels. It raises fundamental questions about the reach of FAA preemption in the wake of Concepcion, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the FAA preempted courts from using California unconscionability law to strike a class relief waiver and order class arbitration. Moreover, the case implicates states' power to protect individuals' access to meaningful injunctive relief in order to enforce and protect public rights under state statutes, such as consumer protection statutes.
Indeed, Kilgore has raised eyebrows because the panel in that case read Concepcion to eclipse Broughton v. CIGNA Healthplans of California, 988 P.2d 67 (Cal. 1999) and Cruz v. Pacificare Health Sys., Inc. 66
P.3d 1157 (Cal. 2003), in which the California Supreme Court had
allowed litigation of claims for public injunctions under California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law despite
arbitration clauses in the parties' agreements. The parties had to
arbitrate their contract and other claims in accordance with the FAA's
mandate, but the public policy exception preserved their access to
enforcement injunctions in order to protect statutory public rights.
The California court reasoned that the FAA did not preclude states from
allowing its citizens to vindicate their statutory rights.
Furthermore, courts are uniquely equipped to handle claims for
injunctive relief. It is a silly exercise to have an arbitrator
determine whether injuncitve relief is proper to the extent that
arbitrators lack the state power to immediately force compliance with
their orders. In other words, consumers who obtain an arbitral order
showing their right to injunctive relief against a "bad actor" would
have to expend more time and resources to have that order enforced in a
court if the "bad actor" fails to comply with the arbitral order. In
addition, arbitrators usually lose jurisdiction over a case after the
final award has issued, therefore raising problems for the parties if
and when they seek modification or other assistance with continuing
injunctive relief.
Bottom line: Injunctive relief is practically different from
ordering money damages and serves special purposes in enforcing public
rights. Concepcion reinforced the FAA's preemption power to
stop states from discriminating against arbitration, but it does not
quash all state ability to protect public rights. The United States
Supreme Court endorsed the importance of judicial access for public
enforcement claims in E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S.
279 (2002), in holding that the EEOC could pursue its claims against an
employer despite an arbitration clause in the employees' agreements with
their employer. It therfore seems that states should be permitted to
allow for similar enforcement of public rights.
Article Via http://www.creditslips.org
Article Via http://www.creditslips.org
Sign up before Midnight to watch our video,
“Biggest Ponzi Scheme in U.S. History to Crash,”
and get our daily e-letter Investment Contrarians.
We respect your privacy!
We will never rent/sell your e-mail address.
That’s a promise! And you can opt out at any time.
No comments:
Post a Comment