-
1 month ago | 
jdsupra.com | Matthew Adler |David Anthony |Kalama Lui-Kwan
On February 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of a petition to compel individual arbitration against Starz Entertainment, LLC. The court held that the plaintiff, who objected to JAMS’ decision to consolidate arbitration proceedings, was not aggrieved under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because Starz never failed, neglected, or refused to arbitrate.
-
1 month ago | 
lexology.com | Matthew Adler |David Anthony |Kalama Lui-Kwan |Justin Weber |Mary C. Zinsner
On February 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of a petition to compel individual arbitration against Starz Entertainment, LLC. The court held that the plaintiff, who objected to JAMS’ decision to consolidate arbitration proceedings, was not aggrieved under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because Starz never failed, neglected, or refused to arbitrate.
-
Oct 7, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Massie P. Cooper |Kalama Lui-Kwan |Mary C. Zinsner
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s decision denying a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, underscoring the importance of clear and conspicuous notice in online arbitration agreements. Although the decision involves an arbitration provision in an online application for employment, it echoes lessons imparted by courts in cases involving consumer arbitration agreements. Read more here. In Marshall v.
-
Aug 21, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | David Anthony |Kalama Lui-Kwan |Jeremy T. Rosenblum
In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied a retailer’s motion to compel individual arbitration of a claim brought in a putative class action lawsuit. The complaint alleges that the retailer used deceptive sales tactics to induce the plaintiff to make an unnecessary online purchase.
-
Aug 20, 2024 | 
lexology.com | David Anthony |Kalama Lui-Kwan |Jeremy T. Rosenblum |Alan D. Wingfield |Mary C. Zinsner
In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied a retailer’s motion to compel individual arbitration of a claim brought in a putative class action lawsuit. The complaint alleges that the retailer used deceptive sales tactics to induce the plaintiff to make an unnecessary online purchase.
-
Aug 9, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Christopher J. Capurso |Massie P. Cooper |Kalama Lui-Kwan
On August 7, the U.S. Department of Treasury hosted a virtual briefing to discuss the steps that the Biden-Harris administration is taking to address perceived unfair and deceptive practices in the consumer solar energy industry.
-
Apr 9, 2024 | 
lexblog.com | Massie P. Cooper |Mark J. Furletti |Kalama Lui-Kwan |Jeremy M. Rosenblum
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s ruling, which had denied a motion to compel arbitration of Opportunity Financial (OppFi) on the basis that the arbitration clause was substantively unconscionable due to the choice of law provision in the loan agreement containing the arbitration clause. The Ninth Circuit vacated the decision and directed the district court to refer the matter to arbitration.
-
Apr 9, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Massie P. Cooper |Mark J. Furletti |Kalama Lui-Kwan |Jeremy T. Rosenblum |Mary C. Zinsner
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s ruling, which had denied a motion to compel arbitration of Opportunity Financial (OppFi) on the basis that the arbitration clause was substantively unconscionable due to the choice of law provision in the loan agreement containing the arbitration clause. The Ninth Circuit vacated the decision and directed the district court to refer the matter to arbitration.
-
Feb 1, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Massie P. Cooper |Anthony C. Kaye |Kalama Lui-Kwan
On January 15, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) issued amended Mass Arbitration Supplementary Rules and new Consumer Mass Arbitration and Mediation Fee Schedules (collectively, the New Rules). The New Rules will apply to all mass arbitration cases filed on or after January 15, but not to any mass arbitrations filed prior to that date. The New Rules aim to reduce friction and enhance process efficiency.
-
Jan 31, 2024 | 
lexblog.com | Jeremy T. Rosenblum |Massie P. Cooper |Anthony C. Kaye |Kalama Lui-Kwan
On January 15, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) issued amended Mass Arbitration Supplementary Rules and new Consumer Mass Arbitration and Mediation Fee Schedules (collectively, the New Rules). The New Rules will apply to all mass arbitration cases filed on or after January 15, but not to any mass arbitrations filed prior to that date. The New Rules aim to reduce friction and enhance process efficiency.
