Mey v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-179-JPB-JPM (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 12, 2021) [click for opinion]
In 2012, Plaintiff Diana Mey, an ordinary wireless consumer, entered into a cell phone service contract with AT&T Mobility which included an agreement to arbitrate “all disputes and claims” with AT&T Mobility and its “affiliates.” In 2015, the parent company of AT&T Mobility—AT&T Inc.—acquired DIRECTV. DIRECTV does not provide cell phone service.
Some years later, Mey sued DIRECTV for making unwanted automated telemarketing calls. DIRECTV moved to compel arbitration, asserting that the dispute was covered by the arbitration agreement governing Mey’s cell phone plan with AT&T Mobility. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the dispute did not fall within the scope of the agreement and that any other construction of the agreement would be unconscionably overbroad. DIRECTV appealed. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s order, finding that the dispute was within the scope of the agreement, but remanded the issue for further consideration of Mey’s unconscionability challenge……
Read the complete story here.
This article was first published on the JAMS ADR Blog here. Planning and preparation are key components for any successful arbitration. Over the years, as a former litigator and current...By Harold Himmelman
In this episode of The Arbitration Conversation Amy interviews Prof. Anthony Daimsis of the University of Ottawa on the Uber case in Canada and unconscionability applied to the arbitration clause...By Anthony Daimsis, Amy Schmitz
A Colorado appellate court recently held that arbitrators do not have the inherent power to sanction an attorney personally for misconduct. See Herrera v. Santangelo Law Offices, P.C., No. 20CA2105,...By Imre Szalai