Selecting an attorney for legal cases is a very important decision. Please enter your information below to receive a Free Consultation from an attorney in your area:
Arbitration News
Three Separate Lawsuits Were Initially Brought Against Defendant AT&T Wireless And Other Providers Of Wireless Telephone
In Szetela v. Discover Bank (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1094 (Szetela), the Court of Appeal held an arbitration clause prohibiting class-wide arbitration to be unconscionable and unenforceable. The trial court in the present case relied upon Szetela to rule that the arbitration clause at issue here is likewise unconscionable. Recognizing that the issue is pending before our Supreme Court, we will not follow Szetela and will conclude instead that under the facts in the present case the contractual ban on class-wide arbitration is not unduly one-sided, harsh, or in violation of public policy.1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Three separate lawsuits were initially brought against defendant AT&T Wireless and other providers of wireless telephone service, challenging the “early termination fee” charged to customers who end their wireless telephone service before the expiration of the term of the service agreement. First, Porsha Meoli and two other named plaintiffs brought a class action in Alameda County to challenge both the early termination fee and AT&T’s locked handsets that preclude the use of competitors’ networks. Plaintiffs alleged that the early termination fee constituted an unlawful liquidated damages provision and thereby violated the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) and the Consumers’ Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.). Second, Diane Tucker sued in Orange County under similar theories as a private attorney general under the UCL. And, in the third lawsuit, Jerilyn Marlowe and seven other named plaintiffs brought a class action in Alameda County alleging violations of the UCL and the CLRA. These three lawsuits were coordinated with other lawsuits pending against other wireless service providers.
Some types of disputes can not go into arbitration.
By their nature, the subject matter of some disputes are not capable of arbitration. Matters relating to crimes, status, and family law are generally not considered to be arbitrable.
Newsroom
News about Arbitration cases in Vermont and nationwide:
Definition:
Awards are the decisions of the arbitrators, which are made in writing and enforceable under state and federal statute.
Mini-trial
Definition:
A mini-trial consists of a non-binding exchange of information and is meant to ease the dispute and ensure a cost-effective but prompt resolution of complex litigation.
Counterclaims
Definition:
Counterclaims are counter-demands made by a respondent in his or her favor against a claimant. They are not mere answers or denials of the claimant's allegations.
Legal Disclaimers
All attorney listings are a paid attorney advertisement, and do not in any way constitute a referral or endorsement by an approved or authorized lawyer referral service. The information provided on Vermont Arbitration.com is not intended to be legal advice, but merely conveys general information related to legal issues commonly encountered. Your access to and use of this website is subject to additional
Terms and Conditions.
Local Professional? Generate new business today
Call 866-227-9356 or contact a sales rep
Did You Know?