Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/10/2019 in Posts

  1. 1 point
    thank you again @Brotherskeeper for helping me and I promise to stop being a loon!
  2. 1 point
    yes yes am drafting @Brotherskeeper will start with denying and answering court then I guess just go from there
  3. 1 point
    This new ruling has some very good snippets that you have posted above. This ruling really adds a few good punches that, IMO all but makes an MTC impossible to defeat. I agree that this ruling seems to also work against the argument of costs being a viable reason to deny an MTC.
  4. 1 point
    @fisthardcheese This new SCOTUS opinion, decided on Jan. 8, 2019, might offer some persuasive argument to use when the JDB raises its costs of arb when opposing a MTC. I've added emphasis to some text. I realize this case is about who decides threshold arbitrability--judge or arbitrator--and not about the cost per se of arbitration. What do you think? HENRY SCHEIN, INC. v. ARCHER & WHITE SALES, INC. 586 U. S. ____ (2019) "We must interpret the Act as written, and the Act in turn requires that we interpret the contract as written. When the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, a court may not override the contract. In those circumstances, a court possesses no power to decide the arbitrability issue. That is true even if the court thinks that the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to a particular dispute is wholly groundless. That conclusion follows not only from the text of the Act but also from precedent. We have held that a court may not “rule on the potential merits of the underlying” claim that is assigned by contract to an arbitrator, “even if it appears to the court to be frivolous.” AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U. S. 643, 649–650 (1986). A court has “‘no business weighing the merits of the grievance’” because the “‘agreement is to submit all grievances to arbitration, not merely those which the court will deem meritorious.’” Id., at 650 (quoting Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U. S. 564, 568 (1960)). That AT&T Technologies principle applies with equal force to the threshold issue of arbitrability. Just as a court may not decide a merits question that the parties have delegated to an arbitrator, a court may not decide an arbitrability question that the parties have delegated to an arbitrator." [snip] Third, Archer and White says that, as a practical and policy matter, it would be a waste of the parties’ time and money to send the arbitrability question to an arbitrator if the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless. In cases like this, as Archer and White sees it, the arbitrator will inevitably conclude that the dispute is not arbitrable and then send the case back to the district court. So why waste the time and money? The short answer is that the Act contains no “wholly groundless” exception, and we may not engraft our own exceptions onto the statutory text. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U. S. 546, 556−557 (2005). [snip] Fourth, Archer and White asserts another policy argument: that the “wholly groundless” exception is necessary to deter frivolous motions to compel arbitration. Again, we may not rewrite the statute simply to accommodate that policy concern. In any event, Archer and White overstates the potential problem. Arbitrators can efficiently dispose of frivolous cases by quickly ruling that a claim is not in fact arbitrable. And under certain circumstances, arbitrators may be able to respond to frivolous arguments for arbitration by imposing fee-shifting and cost-shifting sanctions, which in turn will help deter and remedy frivolous motions to compel arbitration. We are not aware that frivolous motions to compel arbitration have caused a substantial problem in those Circuits that have not recognized a “wholly groundless” exception. In sum, we reject the “wholly groundless” exception. The exception is inconsistent with the statutory text and with our precedent. It confuses the question of who decides arbitrability with the separate question of who prevails on arbitrability. When the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the courts must respect the parties’ decision as embodied in the contract."
  5. 1 point
    I have had my run in with the same law firm, same debt company, same credit card, and same state. My advise to you is to read through my thread and see how much this community is absolutely amazing. See how a normal Joe shmo like myself, turned from a uninformed scared person, into a well informed individual. The process takes time, research, and patients but in the end is rewarding and self fulfilling. If you start reading through my thread you will see i made a lot of mistakes early on, luckily I had some guardian angels on my side such as @fisthardcheese@Brotherskeeper@nobk4me@BV80 just to name a few. This thread is packed full of great information to help you along your journey. I hope it finds you well in your research and aids you in successful battle!
  6. 1 point
    From what I gather, the basis of the other cases was that the contract says individual arbitration and thus the drivers should follow the contract. The terms were put in the contract by Uber and offered on a take it or leave it basis to the drivers. Therefore the onus is on Uber (and Uber's attorneys) to know that if 1500 arbitration claims were filed at one time on the basis of the contract, what the costs should be. Therefore now if Uber were to try that argument, the plaintiffs could argue that they wrote the contract, they should have known or been informed what could happen if a large number of people did find individual arbitration a financially viable alternative to their claim, and that they enforced the contract on the plaintiffs. Based on those 3 things, I do not believe that Uber's attempt to get out of paying for arbitration has any merit at this point. Regardless of whether the claims of the plaintiff have any merit or not. This issue came up because for drivers, employment rule breaches can add up real quick (for example if someone making $15/hour regular wage worked 20 hours OT for 6 months, that claim is over $3500). That makes those claims more financially viable for individual arbitration than say someone arguing over a $62 overcharge. This means that what we may see as an outcome is that companies are going to have to decide where arbitration clauses make sense and where they do not. Kinda like how Comeity Bank uses them all of the time whereas Capital One has gotten rid of them completely. Uber might keep the clauses for passengers (whose claims would be lower than drivers) but remove them for drivers.
  7. 1 point
    Sounds as if "ONE" could keep this going and going, almost like in Dickens's Bleak House " Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least, but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises. . . .The little plaintiff or defendant who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. . . . but Jarndyce and Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the court, perennially hopeless."