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.
“American exceptionalism” has been used to reference the United States’ outlier policies in various contexts, including its love for litigation. Despite Americans’ reverence for their “day in court,” their zest...By Amy Schmitz
This article first appeared on Urbas Arbitral, here. In lululemon athletica canada inc. v. Industrial Color Productions Inc., 2021 BCSC 15, Mr. Justice Gordon S. Funt determined that a standard of...By Daniel Urbas
This article first appeared on the Carlton Fields webpage, here. An employee sued her former employer and coworkers in the Eastern District of Michigan for sexual harassment, defamation, and for...By Benjamin Stearns