May 25, 2012

Third Circuit Rules that the Issue of Whether the Arbitration Agreement Contained An Explicit Class Action Waiver is Within the Discretion of the District Court to Decide

PULEO V. CHASE BANK U.S.A. (CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-3837 MAY 10, 2010 )

In this action, plaintiff sued defendant over principal and interest from several credit card agreements. The credit card agreement contained a very broad arbitration agreement requiring the parties to decide “all claims” by arbitration. In addition, the arbitration agreement also expressly barred class action lawsuits. Despite the bar on class action lawsuits, plaintiff commenced an action against defendant as a putative class action. Defendant moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the credit card agreement between the parties. With respect to whether the class action waiver was enforceable, plaintiff requested that the district court make a determination.

Defendant, again, opposed the court involving itself with this dispute and requested that the issue of enforceability of the class action waiver be decided by an arbitration panel. The district court concluded that the enforceability of the class action waiver is an issue of arbitribility and, as a result, such issues are within the discretion of the court to make a determination. Defendant appealed to the Third Circuit. In its motion papers, defendant cited to several Supreme Court opinions that supported the proposition that the issue of arbitrability is more appropriate for an arbitration panel to decide. The majority disagreed and found the issue of arbitrability rests within the discretion of the court except if the arbitration clause was clear that such decisions rest with the arbitrator. The dissent claimed that the language contained in the arbitration agreement gave that right to the arbitration panel.

IMPACT (ARBITRATION): Here is another important decision regarding the scope of an arbitration clause. The Third Circuit was faced with the issue of whether a class action waiver is enforceable. Based on the decision by the Third Circuit, the issue has yet to be fully decided and it depends on the language in the arbitration agreement. For those entitles wishing to have the arbitration panel decide the issue, the language in the agreement should be explicit to avoid any interpretation to the contrary.

All content © 2012 Goldberg Segalla LLP

About the Author

Listed in Business First's Who's Who in Law, named to New York Super Lawyers, and AV rated by Martindale Hubbell, Daniel W Gerber is a partner of the firm and maintains a national practice in commercial litigation with a focus on complex insurance coverage disputes and analysis. He chairs Goldberg Segalla's Life, Health, Disability and ERISA practice group and co-chairs the firm's Global Insurance Services practice group. Mr. Gerber is admitted to the United States Supreme Court, as well as all Federal and State courts in New York. He argues regularly in...

716-566-5425

About the Author

Jeffrey L. Kingsley is a partner and experienced member of Goldberg Segalla LLP's Global Insurance Services Practice Group.  He maintains an international practice with a focus on complex insurance and reinsurance coverage disputes as well as extra-contractual liability arbitration and litigation.  He has written several articles on recent reinsurance trends including the rise of original policyholder and the expanding power of arbitrators under the Federal Arbitration Act.  He is the co-editor of Goldberg Segalla's Reinsurance Review,...

716-566-5434

Contributors

Thomas F. Segalla, is the co-author of the renowned insurance law treatise Couch on Insurance 3d and is one of the founding partners of the firm.  Mr. Segalla is a nationally recognized reinsurance and insurance expert who has been retained by numerous insurance carriers and policyholders.  His active practice focuses on the defense and insurance coverage aspects of matters involving bad faith; construction site personal injury accidents (Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6)); and toxic tort and environmental issues. As a member of the...

716-566-5480

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.