Tag Archives: Class Representatives

Dish Network Hopes for a New Trial of Telemarketing Class Action Lawsuit after $20.5 Million Jury Verdict

View Amanda Pickens’ Complete Bio at robinsonbradshaw.comDish Network has asked the Middle District of North Carolina for a new trial in its telemarketing class action lawsuit after a jury found Dish liable for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. After a five-day trial ending on January 19th, a jury awarded damages to the class of $20.5 million.

The lawsuit was filed in 2014 by lead plaintiff Thomas Krakauer alleging Satellite Systems Network, an authorized Dish dealer, called him multiple times between 2009 and 2011 despite being listed on the Do Not Call registry. In September 2015, Judge Catherine Eagles certified two classes, both consisting of persons on the Do Not Call registry who received telemarketing calls from Dish or Satellite System Network between 2010 and 2011.

After the United States Supreme Court decided Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, Dish filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to decertify the class. We highlighted the issues before the Spokeo Court in our previous blog post. In Spokeo, the United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded a decision allowing a consumer who suffered no concrete harm to sue Spokeo Inc. for procedural violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. But the Supreme Court left the opportunity open for plaintiffs in other cases to rely on procedural violations entailing a risk of “concrete injury” to establish standing. The Supreme Court found that the Ninth Circuit’s standing analysis was incomplete because it failed to consider both requirements of an injury-in-fact, that the injury be both concrete and particularized. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion concerned only the particularization of the injury-in-fact.

In August 2016, in a six-page opinion, Judge Eagles denied Dish’s motion to dismiss and to decertify the class based on Spokeo. Judge Eagles noted that although Spokeo “clarified the meaning of a concrete injury,” it did not fundamentally change the doctrine of standing. She found that now “a concrete injury ‘must exist,’ but it can be intangible.” Judge Eagles held that the telemarketing calls made in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act were more than bare procedural violations; the calls “form[ed] concrete injuries because unwanted telemarketing calls are a disruptive and annoying invasion of privacy.” Dish sought an interlocutory appeal of this decision, which was also denied.

Now, after a five-day trial and a $20.5 million jury verdict, Dish is hoping for a new trial. Dish claims, among other things, that the verdict violates Dish’s due process rights because Judge Eagles allowed the jury to impose aggregate damages, rather than allowing Dish to defend each individual claim of an improper phone call. The jury calculated damages by assigning $400.00 per call to the 51,119 distinct phones calls, totaling approximately $20.5 million. Plaintiffs’ response to Dish’s motion for a new trial is due March 28th. If Dish’s motion for a new trial is denied, Dish will likely appeal these issues to the Fourth Circuit. Stay tuned for further developments.

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Seventh Circuit Weighs in on Offers of Judgment

View David Wright's Complete Bio at robinsonbradshaw.comIn this space, we concentrate on class action decisions in the Carolinas, as well as Fourth Circuit and United States Supreme Court precedent. Occasionally, though, we venture beyond these jurisdictions to highlight issues of particular note, including those where courts are divided. We’ve previously reported here how offers of judgment interact with mootness. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the United States Supreme Court held that an unaccepted settlement offer, even if it offers all relief sought in the case, does not render a case moot when the affected party seeks relief on behalf of a class. Last Friday, the Seventh Circuit considered a question not resolved by Gomez: What happens when the named representative accepts a Rule 68 offer of judgment? Can he still appeal the denial of class certification? Like the question of appellate standing upon which the Supreme Court accepted certiorari in Microsoft, the answer is significant.

In Wright v. Calumet City, Illinois, No. 14-cv-10351 (7th Cir. Feb. 17, 2017), the Seventh Circuit acknowledged a split of authority on this question: “Where the Rule 68 offer is accepted but by its terms exempts the class certification issue, courts are divided as to whether the plaintiff retains a concrete interest sufficient to meet the case or controversy requirement of Article III.” The Seventh Circuit noted that Wright’s claim to standing was particularly strained because he accepted the Rule 68 offer without reservation, and he preserved no interest in receiving an incentive award. Wright argued that he had a sufficient interest in the case because his offer of judgment did not include attorney’s fees for the class claim (as opposed to his individual claim), but – as the Seventh Circuit observed – Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.,  494 U.S. 472, 480 (1990) holds that “an interest in attorneys’ fees is, of course, insufficient to create an Article III case or controversy where none exists.” The court noted that there is some tension between Lewis and Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (1980), in which the Supreme Court allowed plaintiffs, whose individual claims had been satisfied, to appeal the denial of class certification based on their asserted interest in shifting attorney’s fees to the class members. But the court distinguished Wright’s case from Roper on the ground that Wright had accepted the Rule 68 offer “as satisfaction of all of the relief that he sought in the district court.” In Roper, by contrast, the district court entered judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount tendered by the defendant, even though the plaintiffs had refused that offer. Thus, even under Roper, Wright’s claims are moot.

There will likely be more permutations on the Rule 68/mootness issues, so stay tuned.

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Congress Considering Major Class Action Reform Legislation

View Adam Doerr's Complete Bio at robinsonbradshaw.comRep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, recently introduced a bill that would make significant changes to federal class action litigation. The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 (H.R. 985) states that it is intended to allow prompt recoveries to plaintiffs with legitimate claims and “diminish abuses in class action and mass tort litigation that are undermining the integrity of the U.S. legal system.”

In its current form, the draft bill would likely eclipse the 2005 passage of the Class Action Fairness Act as the most significant legislation on class actions in decades. Rep. Goodlatte has introduced similar legislation in previous years, but passage is considerably enhanced with unified Republican control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. Among other changes, the bill would enact the following:

  • Prevent certification of a class seeking monetary relief unless the plaintiff “affirmatively demonstrates that each proposed class member suffered the same type and scope of injury as the named class representative or representatives.” (§ 1716) In other words, classes could not include individuals who have not suffered damage, or where damage is not yet clear.
  • Require class counsel to describe how the named plaintiff agreed to be included in the complaint, identify any other class action where the named plaintiff had a similar role, and disclose any family or employment relationship between class counsel and the named plaintiff (in which case certification must be denied). (§ 1717)
  • Require the party seeking certification to show a “reliable and administratively feasible mechanism” for (a) determining whether class members fall within the class definition and (b) distributing monetary relief to “a substantial majority of class members.” (§ 1718(a)). This provision appears to be an effort to impose a formal ascertainability requirement on class certification, as the Fourth Circuit has done in some cases.
  • Make significant changes to attorneys’ fees, including (1) preventing any payment or even determination of fees to class counsel until the distribution of monetary recovery to class members is complete, (2) limiting fee awards to “a reasonable percentage of any payments directly distributed to and received by class members,” and (3) limiting the payment of attorney’s fees based on equitable relief to “a reasonable percentage of the value of the equitable relief.” (§ 1718(b)).
  • Require courts to report, and the Federal Judicial Center to track, disbursements to class members. The Federal Judicial Center would prepare an annual report summarizing how funds paid by defendants in class actions have been distributed, including the largest and smallest amounts paid to any class member and payments to class counsel. (§ 1719) Alison Frankel of Reuters, who writes often and well on class actions, referred to this as “most intriguing idea in House Republicans’ bill to gut class actions.”
  • Bar certification of issue classes (§ 1720), an issue we have previously covered in both a district court case regarding the relationship between predominance and issue certification and when the Supreme Court declined to resolve a circuit split over issue certification.
  • Stay discovery while preliminary motions are pending. (§ 1721) (Interestingly, this provision formally recognizes a “motion to strike class allegations,” a motion that is not currently listed by name under Rule 23, although such motions may be permitted under Rule 23(d)(1)(D), which allows the Court to enter an order to “require that the pleadings be amended to eliminate allegations about representation of absent persons.”)
  • Provide for appellate review of orders granting or denying class certification as a matter of right. (§ 1722) This would be a significant departure from current practice under Rule 23(f), which gives Courts of Appeal substantial discretion in deciding whether to permit such interlocutory appeals.

The bill would also allow more personal injury cases to stay in federal court by changing the diversity jurisdiction analysis in multiple plaintiff cases, and it would make significant changes to multidistrict litigation practice, including barring the transferee judge from conducting a trial unless all parties consent.

The draft legislation is already generating controversy, and this will significantly increase as it advances. In particular, basing attorney’s fee awards on a percentage of the “value of the equitable relief” will be hotly debated. Equitable relief is, by nature, difficult or impossible to value in financial terms. The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights has already registered its opposition, noting the difficulty of putting a value on a class relief protecting disabled individuals from abusive conditions or providing them access to treatment, transportation, and community services.

The bill was introduced on February 9. On February 15, following a series of failed attempts by Democrats to introduce amendments, the Judiciary Committee voted on party lines (19-12) to forward to the bill to the full House. We’ll continue to track this legislation and bring you significant updates.

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page

U.S. Supreme Court Rebukes California Court for Failing to Enforce an Arbitration Agreement with a Class-Arbitration Waiver

View Mark Hiller’s Complete Bio at RBH.com On Monday, the Supreme Court held in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia that a California appellate court erred by declining to enforce an arbitration agreement that prohibits arbitration on a class-wide basis. The decision is the latest in a steady line from the Supreme Court chastising lower courts for failing to give effect to arbitration agreements. Perhaps most interesting, the opinion is written by Justice Breyer, who recently authored a dissent arguing that the Supreme Court has expanded the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) too far. In the Imburgia opinion, Justice Breyer acknowledges his prior dissent but makes clear that the Court’s decisions are the law of the land: While “[l]ower court judges are certainly free to note their disagreement” with Supreme Court precedent, “the judges of every State must follow it.”

We recently previewed Imburgia on this blog. The plaintiffs brought a putative class action in California state court alleging that the defendant, DIRECTV, violated California consumer-protective legislation by imposing large early-termination fees. The DIRECTV service agreement contains a provision requiring consumers to arbitrate their disputes with DIRECTV individually and not on a class-wide basis. The agreement further provides, however, that if the “law of your state” makes the waiver of class arbitration unenforceable, then the entire arbitration provision is unenforceable, thus permitting consumers to litigate their disputes with DIRECTV in court.

When the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in 2008, existing California law held that class-arbitration waivers like the one in DIRECTV’s service agreement were unenforceable. Therefore, per the terms of the service agreement, the entire arbitration provision was unenforceable. In 2011, however, the U.S. Supreme Court held in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), that the California law is preempted by the FAA. In light of Concepcion, DIRECTV moved to stop the litigation and compel arbitration on an individual basis.

The California trial court denied DIRECTV’s motion, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed. The Court of Appeal focused on the provision of the service agreement making the arbitration agreement unenforceable if the “law of your state” makes the waiver of class arbitration unenforceable. The court acknowledged that, after Concepcion, California law does not prohibit DIRECTV’s class arbitration waiver. But, applying California contract law, the court interpreted the words “law of your state” to mean California law without regard to whether that law is preempted. Because pre-Concepcion California law made DIRECTV’s class-arbitration waiver unenforceable, the court held that the entire arbitration agreement is unenforceable.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that the arbitration agreement must be enforced. The Court began its analysis by conceding that the parties to the agreement were free to define the words “law of your state” however they like, including, “[i]n principle,” “by the law of Tibet, the law of pre-revolutionary Russia, or (as is relevant here) the law of California . . . irrespective of that [law’s] invalidation in Concepcion.” The Court further acknowledged that because the meaning of “law of your state” is a question of state law, and the Supreme Court reviews only federal law issues, the Court will accept the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of those words. Nonetheless, the Court stated, the FAA prohibits courts from discriminating against arbitration agreements by applying state law principles to such agreements in a manner different from how courts would apply those principles to other agreements. The Court concluded that the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the words “law of your state” is unique to arbitration contracts and therefore is preempted by the FAA.

The Court gave several reasons for its conclusion. First, the Court said that the phrase “law of your state” unambiguously means valid state law. Second, consistent with this, California case law provides that references to California law incorporate retroactive legislative changes to that law. Third, “nothing in the Court of Appeal’s reasoning suggests that a California court would reach the same interpretation of ‘law of your state’ in any context other than arbitration.” Fourth, the language the Court of Appeals used when discussing California interpretive principles focused on arbitration. Fifth, the Court of Appeal’s reasoning implies that preempted state law maintains legal force—a view the Supreme Court said is unlikely to be accepted by courts or outside of the arbitration context. And finally, “there is no other principle invoked by the Court of Appeal that suggests that California courts would reach the same interpretation of the words ‘law of your state’ in other contexts.”

Justice Ginsburg wrote a heated dissent, which Justice Sotomayor joined. Much of the dissent—which, at 14 pages, is three pages longer than the majority opinion—focuses on what Justice Ginsburg believes is the Court’s improper expansion of the FAA. She opens her dissent by stating that “[i]t has become routine, in a large part due to this Court’s decisions, for powerful economic enterprises to write into their form contracts with consumers and employees no-class-action arbitration clauses.” The Court’s decisions, she states, “have predictably resulted in the deprivation of consumers’ rights to seek redress for losses, and, turning the coin, they have insulated powerful economic interests from liability for violations of consumer-protection laws.” With respect to this case, Justice Ginsburg says it is clear that when DIRECTV originally drafted the service agreement, DIRECTV meant the words “law of your state” to mean state law without regard to federal preemption. And, to the extent “law of your state” is ambiguous, Justice Ginsburg says that the ambiguity should be resolved against DIRECTV because DIRECTV could have avoided the ambiguity through more precise drafting. According to Justice Ginsburg, the Court reaches its holding by substituting its interpretation of “law of your state” for the Court of Appeal’s. Justice Ginsburg says that, in doing so, the Court’s decision “steps beyond” its precedents and is a “dangerous first.”

As noted, it seems meaningful that Justice Breyer, in particular, authored the majority opinion. He was the lead dissenter in Concepcion, where he, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, argued that “the Court is wrong” to hold that the FAA preempts California’s prohibition on certain class-action arbitration waivers. Now, in Imburgia, Justices Breyer and Kagan have moved to the majority, while Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor remain as dissenters. In the Imburgia opinion, Justice Breyer acknowledges his prior dissent but emphasizes that Concepcion is controlling law: “The fact that Concepcion was a closely divided case, resulting in a decision from which four Justices dissented, has no bearing on [the] undisputed obligation” that “the judges of every State must follow it.” This portion of the opinion reads almost like a personal note to lower court judges who may hesitate to enforce arbitration clauses with class action waivers. The most lasting effect of Imburgia, therefore, may be to chasten such judges from resisting Concepcion.

Finally, Justice Thomas wrote a brief dissent reaffirming his view that the FAA does not apply to proceedings in state courts.

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Preview of Significant Class Action Cases Pending in the U.S. Supreme Court

View Mark Hiller’s Complete Bio at RBH.comThe Supreme Court began its new Term on October 5, and already the Court is slated to hear several cases that could have major impacts on class-action litigation. Among the issues facing the Court are:

▪ whether a defendant can render a putative class action moot by offering the named plaintiff all the relief the plaintiff could recover individually if the plaintiff were to prevail, even if the plaintiff rejects the offer (Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez);

▪ whether a plaintiff has standing to bring a claim (including a class claim) where the plaintiff’s statutory rights were violated, but the plaintiff did not suffer any “real world” injury (Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins);

▪ whether a class may be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) where the plaintiff relies on statistical evidence that assumes that each class member is identical to the average observed in a sample, and where some class members did not suffer any injuries at all (Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo); and

▪ the extent to which courts may strike down arbitration agreements as unenforceable, thereby allowing plaintiffs to proceed in the courts through class actions (MHN Government Services, Inc. v. Zaborowski and DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia).

In this post we describe what is at stake in each case. We will follow the cases throughout the Term and update you in future posts as they are decided or if the Supreme Court grants additional cases of interest.

Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez

Sometimes referred to as the “pick off” case, Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez addresses the following scenario: What happens if, before a class is certified, the defendant offers to pay the named plaintiff everything the plaintiff could recover individually if the plaintiff prevailed in the lawsuit, but the plaintiff rejects the offer? In particular, does the defendant’s unaccepted offer moot the plaintiff’s individual claim? And if so, does it also moot the class claim? These questions are highly consequential to the many class actions in which a plaintiff’s individual damages are a fraction of the defendant’s prospective litigation costs and class-wide liability, giving the defendant a strong incentive to “pick off” the named plaintiff with an offer of complete relief.

The case arises from a putative class action that the plaintiff filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act after he received an unwanted text message from a company hired to recruit for the U.S. Navy. The statute caps damages at $1,500 for each unsolicited message a defendant sends, but because of the large size of the putative class (some 100,000 individuals), the defendant’s potential liability in this case could stretch well into the nine figures. Before the plaintiff moved to certify the class, the defendant offered him $1,503 (just over the statutory cap for damages). The plaintiff rejected the offer, but the defendant argued that the offer nonetheless mooted both the plaintiff’s individual claim and the class claim. In the defendant’s view, because the plaintiff was being offered everything he could recover if he prevailed in the lawsuit, there was no longer any dispute to resolve, and hence no “case or controversy” under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

The district court and Ninth Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument, and the Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 14. This is the second time in as many years that the Supreme Court has faced the question whether an offer of complete relief moots a plaintiff’s claim. In Genesis Healthcare Corporation v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013), which involved a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a five-Justice majority (consisting of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) declined to decide the issue, holding that it was not properly presented. Justice Kagan issued a heated dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. She said that the Court should have reached the question and held that an unaccepted offer “will never” moot a plaintiff’s individual claim. On October 14, the Justices squared off again, with Justice Kagan peppering the defendant’s counsel with skeptical questions, and the Chief Justice and Justice Alito doing the same of the plaintiff’s counsel. Justice Breyer expressed interest in a possible middle ground: Whether, even if the defendant’s mere act of offering complete relief to a plaintiff does not moot the plaintiff’s claim, the claim would become moot if the defendant actually deposits with the court the amount of money representing complete relief.

(In addition to the knotty class action questions above, Campbell-Ewald also presents an entirely separate question relating to the somewhat obscure topic of derivative sovereign immunity. Although the Court expressed little interest in this issue at oral argument, it is possible that the Court could once again skirt the class action questions by holding that the defendant in Campbell-Ewald (a U.S. Navy contractor) is immune from suit.)

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins

Like Campbell-Ewald, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins also presents a question of constitutional standing: Whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute.

The plaintiff in Spokeo alleged that the defendant, a website operator that provides users with personal information about other individuals, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by publishing false information about him and by failing to send certain required notices to third parties. The plaintiff brought an action on behalf of himself and a putative class of millions of members, putting the defendant’s prospective damages in the billions of dollars.

In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s actions injured him by harming his employment prospects and by causing him related anxiety. The district court held that these asserted injuries were insufficient to confer standing on the plaintiff. The Ninth Circuit reversed, but on much broader grounds. It held that the defendant’s alleged violation of the statute was itself sufficient to confer standing, even if the plaintiff did not suffer the injuries alleged in his complaint, or any other injury beyond the statutory violation.

The defendant argues that such “injury in law” is insufficient to create standing, unless it is accompanied by a real-world “injury in fact.” The Supreme Court faced this same question three years ago in First American Financial Corporation v. Edwards, 132 S. Ct. 2536 (2012), but the Court dismissed that case as improvidently granted. (As is customary, the Court provided no explanation for why it dismissed the case.) The defendant in Spokeo argues that the issue has only grown in importance since then, as evidenced by the numerous FCRA class actions that have been filed, the large damages at stake, and the number of other federal statutes that, like FCRA, provide for statutory damages apart from actual damages. Oral argument took place on November 2.

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo

In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, the Supreme Court will probe the scope of Rule 23(b)(3) class actions and its recent, high-profile decisions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), and Comcast Corporation v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). This case arises from an overtime pay dispute brought by employees at a meat-packing plant in Iowa. A jury awarded class-wide damages of some $3 million after finding that the defendant failed to pay the plaintiffs for time spent putting on (donning) and taking off (doffing) their work equipment, as well as for time spent walking to their work stations.

What landed the case in the Supreme Court is the method the plaintiffs used to prove class-wide liability and damages. The problem the plaintiffs faced was that the class members spent different amounts of time donning, doffing, and walking. As a result, they were entitled to different amounts of overtime pay, and in some cases, to none at all. The plaintiffs accounted for these differences by having one of their experts study a sample of employees and compute an “average” amount of time that plaintiffs spent donning, doffing, and walking. Another expert then calculated damages on a class-wide basis by assuming that every employee spent the average amount of donning, doffing, and walking time, even though any particular employee may have spent more or less time than the average. The plaintiffs’ expert acknowledged that this methodology resulted in there being at least 212 members in the class who did not suffer any damages because they were not entitled to overtime.

The defendant argues that the class should not have been certified because common questions of fact or law did not predominate over individual ones, as required by Rule 23(b)(3). The Court will hear oral argument on November 10, and it has granted cert on two issues: First, whether a class action may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) where liability and damages will be determined with statistical techniques that presume all class members are identical to the average observed in a sample; and second, whether a class may be certified when it contains members who were not injured and thus have no legal right to damages. The Court has further agreed to hear these issues as they relate to the certification of collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Arbitration Cases: MHN Government Services, Inc. v. Zaborowski and DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia

Finally, the Supreme Court will hear two cases dealing with the intersection of class actions and arbitration agreements. In both cases, California courts (one state, one federal) held that the defendant’s arbitration agreement was unenforceable, and thus that the plaintiffs’ class actions could proceed in court.

In MHN Government Services, Inc. v. Zaborowski, the Ninth Circuit held that certain provisions of the arbitration agreement were unconscionable under California law. Instead of severing those provisions, however, the court affirmed the district court’s decision not to enforce any part of the arbitration agreement.

In DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, the arbitration agreement prohibited class-wide arbitration, but further provided that if “the law of your state” would find this prohibition unenforceable, then the entire arbitration agreement is unenforceable. Prior to 2011, California case law treated such class-arbitration bans as unenforceable, but in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), the Supreme Court held the case law preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Nonetheless, in Imburgia, the California state court held that the words “the law of your state” refer to California law without regard to whether the law is invalid (which it is, in light of Concepcion). Accordingly, the court declined to enforce the arbitration agreement.

The defendants in Zaborowski and Imburgia argue that the decisions reflect a judicial hostility to arbitration agreements held by California state and federal courts. Oral argument in Zaborowski has not yet been scheduled. Oral argument in Imburgia took place on October 6. The Justices made little effort to hide their view that the California court misinterpreted the meaning of the words “law of your state.” (As Justice Kagan put it: “[The state court] probably got the answer wrong. Strike the ‘probably.’ Got the answer wrong.”) But the bulk of oral argument was spent on the threshold question whether the Supreme Court has authority to hear this case in the first place, since the meaning of the words “law of your state” is a matter of state law, and the Supreme Court reviews federal law. The plaintiffs suggested in their briefing that the Court therefore may wish to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, which, given the tenor of oral argument, may be the best outcome the plaintiffs can hope for.

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page