FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 1, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 31 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 09 -m d- 02 03 6- JLK,

1: 09 -cv -2 36 32 -J LK InRe: CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT LITIGATION ll ll ll ll ll ll l MDL NO. 20 36

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JEFF REY BUFFINGTON, JEANETTE BUFFINGTON, on be ha lf o f th em se lv es an d al l o th er s im il arl y

si tu at ed , Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll ees , ve rs us SUNTRUST BANKS, INC., Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 1, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Su nTru stBan ks , Inc . app eal s t he de ni al of i ts ren ewedm ot io n t o c om pe lJe ffre y

an d J ean et te Bu ffi ng to n t o a rb it rat e th ei r co m pl ai ntag ai ns t Su nTru st . 9 U.S.C. § 1 6( a)(1 )(C) . The Bu ffi ng to ns su edSunTru stina Geo rg iaco urt fo r al le ge dl y vi ol at in g s ta te law b y

co ll ect in g o ve rdraftfees un de r it s d ep os it ag reem en t, an d S un Trus t re m ov edth e act io n t o d is tri ctco urt an d m ov edto co m pe l arb it rat io n b as edon anarb it rat io n c laus e in th e ag reem en t. The di stric t co urt de ni edth e m ot io n t o c om pe l o n t he gro un d tha t the arb it rat io n c laus e was subs ta nt iv el y

un co ns ci on ab le be cau se itco nt ai ne d acla ss act io n wai ve r, bu t we va cat edth atrul in g a ndrem an de d fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n i n t he li gh t o f AT&T Mo bi li ty L LC v. Co nc ep ci on , 56 3 U.S. _

__ ,13 1 S . Ct. 1 74 0 (2 01 1) . On rem an d, Su nTru stren ewedit s m ot io n t o c om pe l, wh ic h the di st ric t co urt d en ie d o n t he gr ou ndth atth e arb it rat io n c laus e was subs ta nt iv el y un co ns ci on ab le un de r Geo rg ia la w bec au se pro vi si on s g ran ti ng SunTru stth e ri gh t t o re co ve r it s ex pe ns es for arb it rat io n a ll oc at eddi sp ro po rti on at el y to th e Bu ffi ng to ns th e ri sk s o f erro r an d lo ss in he ren t i n d is pu te res ol ut io n. Be cau se th e rei m bu rs em en t p ro vi si on s ar e co ns ci on ab le un de r Geo rg ialaw, we re ve rs e th e o rd er d eny in g t he ren ewedm ot io n to co m pe l o f Su nTru stan d re m an d wi th in stru ct io ns to co m pe l arbi tra ti on . I. BACK GROUND The Bu ffi ng to ns fil eda co m pl ai ntin a Geo rg iaco urt “ on be ha lf o f th em se lv es an d a ll pe rs on s s im il arl y si tu at ed ” ag ai ns t Su nTru st . The Bu ffi ng to ns 2co m

pl ai ne d t ha t Su nTru stbre ach edit s co nt ract , con ve rte d fu nd s, ac te d un co ns ci on ab ly, an d was un jus tl y en ric he d b y

ass es si ng ov erdraftfees im pr op erl y on th e Bu ffi ng to ns ’ joi ntch eck in g a cco un t. The Bu ffi ng to ns all eg edth at Su nTru stpro ces se d tran sa ct io ns de cep ti ve ly to m ax im iz e o ve rdraftfees an d as se ss edov erdraftfees when acco un ts co nt ai ne d s uf fic ie ntfun ds to pa y

ch arg es . Su nTru strem ov edth e co m pl ai ntto fed eral co urt an d m ov edto co m pe l the Bu ffi ng to ns to arb it rat e th ei r co m pl ai ntin di vi du al ly. SunTru starg ue d tha t the Bu ffi ng to ns ha d a gr eedon pa ge 22 of t he Ru le s an d R eg ul at io ns forDepo si t Acco un ts to subm it“ an y

un res ol vabl e d is pu te , con tro ve rs y or c la im . . . othe r th an an y Excl ud edCla im

or P ro ceed in g, . . . con cern in g, ar is in g o utof o r rel at in g t o t he Acco un t o r th es e ru le s an d re gu la ti on s, i nc lu di ng an y cla im s re ga rd in g t he ap pl ic ab il it y , in te rp ret at io n, s co pe or v al id it y of t hi s arbi tra ti on claus e an d/ orth es e ru le s an d re gu la ti on s, . . . [to ] in di vi du al (no t cl as s o r cl as swi de ) bi nd in g arb it rat io n . . . .” Sun Trus t re qu es te d t ha t the di st ric t co urt s ta y th e Bu ffi ng to ns ’ act io n p en di ng res ol ut io n o f th e arb it rat io n p ro ceed in g. The Bu ffi ng to ns op po se d t he m ot io n t o c om pe l an d arg ue d t ha t the arb it rat io n c laus e was un co ns ci on ab le . The Bu ffi ng to ns arg ue d, re le vantto th is ap pe al , th atth e arb itrat io n c laus e was pro cedur al ly unc on sc io nabl e b ecau se itwas

“ no t p res en te d i n aco ns pi cu ou s m an ne r an d fa il [ed ] to pre se ntcu st om ers with a 3m ean in gf

ul ch oi ce” b ecau se th ey

were “ of fere d [a rb it rat io n] on a ta ke -it -o r-l eav eitba si s.” Th e Bu ffi ng to ns als o a rg ue d t ha t the claus e was subs tant iv el y un co ns ci on ab le be cau se th ei r “ li m it edpo te nt ia l re co ve ry ” was ecl ip se d b y th e co st s o f arb it rat io n, i nc lu di ng th e p ot en ti al ob li ga ti onto rei m bu rs e Su nTru stforit s ex pe ns es as apre va il in g p arty . The Bu ffi ng to ns ba se d t he ir s ub st an ti ve un co ns ci on ab il it y

arg um en t o n apro vi si on in th e arb it rat io n c laus e st at in g t ha t

“ [t]he pre va il in g p arty

sh al l b e en ti tl edto anawardof t he co st s an d e xp en se s o f th e arb it rat io n i nc lu di ng anawardof r eas on ab le att orne y s’ fees for an y Cla im (s ) in whi chth e p arty

ha s p rev ai le d, ex cep t as ot he rwis e requi redby app li cab le law.” Su nTru strep li edth atth e arb it rat io n c laus e was co ns ci on ab le . Sun Trus t arg ue d t ha t the claus e was pro cedur al ly con sc io nabl e as “pr om in en t an d co ns pi cu ou s.” Su nTru stals o a rg ue d t ha t the claus e was subs ta nt iv el y co ns ci on ab le be cau se it s re im bu rs em en t p ro vi si on “ gu aran te e[d ] anawardof at to rn ey s’ fees an d e xp en se s t o t he pre va il in g p arty ” an d t he Bu ffi ng to ns ’ po te nt ia l re co ve ry

ex ceed edth e $ 4,0 00 th atth ey ha d a ccu m

ul at edin ov erdraft fees . Afte r we rem an de d fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o re co ns id er the m ot io n t o c om pe l in th e li gh t o f Co nc ep ci on , Sun Trus t re ne wedit s m ot io n t o c om pe l arbi tra ti on an d th e Bu ffi ng to ns op po se d t he ren ewedm ot io n. Th e Bu ffi ng to ns rep eat edth ei r 4arg um en t tha t ar bi tra ti on was c os t-p ro hi bi ti ve an d a ls o arg ue d t ha t the arb itrat io n cl au se was s ub st an ti ve ly unc on sc io nabl e b ecau se itco nt ai ne d “ fee- sh ift in g pr ov is io ns ” th at“ effe ct iv el y pre cl ud e[d ] Su nTru stcu st om ers fro m bri ng in g a cl ai m for[th e] im

pr op er i m po si ti on of o ve rdraftfees .” The B uf fin gt on s ci te d t wo pr ov is io ns in supp ort o f th ei r un co ns ci on ab il it y arg um en t: (1) th e ri gh t o f a pr ev ai li ng pa rty to h av e it s co st s re im bu rs ed ; an d (2 ) th e ri gh t o f a p arty de m an di ng arb it rat io n t o re co ve r “ reas on ab le co st s an d e xp en se s, i nc lu di ng at to rn ey s’ fees ” if

th e o th er p arty

“ wro ng fu ll y

fai ls to co m

pl y with” th atde m an d. The di stric t co urt d en ie d t he ren ewedm ot io n t o c om pe l. The di st ric t co urt ru le d t ha t the arb it rat io n c laus e was subs tant iv el y un co ns ci on ab le be cau se two pr ov is io ns in th e cl au se “pl ace[ d] ne arl y all th e ri sk s o f en ga gi ng indi sp ut e res ol ut io n” un fai rly onth e Bu ffi ng to ns . The d is tri ctco urt b as edit s d eci si on on th e rei m bu rs em en t p ro vi si on cit edby the Bu ffi ng to ns an d asec on d p ro vi si on th at pe rm it te d S un Trus t, “ [i]f [a d ep os it or ] owe [d ] [it ] m on ey . . . [th at ] be co m es du e, . . . [to ex erci se it s] rig htun de r th e la w (cal le d ri gh t o f of fs etor s et of

f) . . . to us e th e m on ey

fro m [th e d ep os it or ’s] Acco un t t o p ay th e d eb t.” II . STANDARD OF REVIEW W e rev ie w de n ov o t he de ni al of am ot io n t o c om pe l arbi tra ti on . Jen ki ns v. Fi rs t Am . Cas h Adva nc e o f Ga., LLC, 40 0 F .3d86 8, 8 73 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). 5II I. DI SCUSSI ON

Su nTru stco nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e co m pe ll edth e Bu ffi ng to ns to arb it rat e th ei r co m pl ai nt . Sun Trus t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erro ne ou sl y

ba se d i ts fin di ng of s ub st an ti ve un co ns ci on ab il it y on a pr ov is io n n ot m en ti on edby eith er p arty an d, al te rn at iv el y , th atth e cl au se is sev erab le . Becau se we ag ree wi thSunTru stth atth e arb it rat io n c laus e is co ns ci on ab le , we nee d n ot ad dr es s wh ethe r th e cl au se is sev erab le . The di stric t co urt erredin it s re so lu ti on of the is su e o f subs ta nt iv e co ns ci on ab il it y . The arb it rat io n a gr eem en t p erm it te d S un Trus t t o re cei ve “ an awardof t he co st s an d e xp en se s o f th e arb it rat io n i nc lu di ng anawardof reas on ab le att orne y s’ fees foran y Cla im (s ) inwhi ch [it ] . . . prev ai le d” an d t o co ll ectth atam ou ntwhen it“be c[am e] du e . . . [un de r wha t i s] (cal le d ri gh t o f of fs etor s et of

f).” Th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t the se pro vi si on s wer e un co ns ci on ab le , bu t u nd er Geo rg ialaw “ [a] con tra ctall owi ng a ba nka se t-o ff o f it s i nd eb te dn es s t o ade po si to r ag ai ns t the de po si to r’s in de bt edne ss to itis no t un co ns ci on ab le .” Green e v . Cit iz en s & S. Ban k o f Co bb Cn ty., 21 3 S .E.2d17 5, 17 8 (Ga . App . 19 75 ); s ee al so Mu sn ic k v . Kin g M ot orCo . of Fo rt Lau de rd al e, 32 5 F.3 d 1 25 5, 1 25 9– 60 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). The d is tri ctco urt al so fou nd un co ns ci on ab le th e ri gh t o f Su nTru stto sei ze fu nd s t ha t ar e joi nt ly owne d, b ut“ if 6a p arty

to a m ul ti pl e-p arty

acco un t i s i nd eb te d t o afin an ci al in st itut io n, the fin an ci al in st itut io n h as a ri gh t t o s et of f ag ai ns t the acco un t i n wh ic h t he pa rty has . . . a pres en t ri gh t o f wit hd rawal ,” Ga. Co de Ann . § 7 -1 -8 21 . The arb it rat io n ag reem en t i s n otsubs ta nt iv el y un co ns ci on ab le . The di stric t co urt al so rul edth atth e arb it rat io n c laus e was pro cedur al ly un co ns ci on ab le , bu t t o b e p ro cedur al ly unc on sc io nabl e, un de r Geo rg ialaw, a co nt ractm

us t b e “ so on e-s id ed ” th at“ ‘no s an e m anno t ac ti ng un de r a d el us io n wou ldm ak e an d tha t n o h on es t m anwou ld ’” part ic ip at e inth e tr an sa ct io n. NEC Tech s., In c. v. Nel so n, 4 78 S.E.2d76 9, 7 71 & n .2 (Ga . 19 96 ) (quo ti ng R.L. Kim se y Co tt on Co . v. Fer gu so n, 2 14 S.E.2d36 0, 3 63 (Ga. 19 75 )). The arb it rat io n cl au se in th e Bu ffi ng to ns ’ ag reem en t fa ll s wel l s ho rt o f th is st an da rd . Alth ou gh th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ro ub li ng th atth e cl au se was p res en te d t o t he Bu ffi ng to ns

“ on a ta ke -it -o r-l eav e-i t b as is with n o o pt -o utpro vi si on ,” un de r Geo rg ialaw, an adhe si on co ntractis no t p er s e u nc on sc io nabl e. See C rawfo rdv. Re su lt s Ori en te d, In c., 54 8 S .E.2d34 2, 3 43 (Ga. 20 01 ) (ci ti ng Mu no z v . GreenTree Fi n. Co rp ., 54 2 S.E.2d36 0, 3 65 (S.C. 2 00 1) ); s ee al so Cal ey v. Gu lfs tre am

Aero sp ace C or

p., 4 28 F.3 d 1 35 9, 1 37 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (de sp it e th e ex is te nc e o f a “ba rg ai ni ng di sp ari ty” co m m on to anem

pl oym en t re la ti on sh ip , itdi d n otren de r th e arb itrat io n a gr eem en t en te redun co ns ci on ab le un de r Geo rg ialaw) . As th e Supr em e Co urt h as 7reco gn iz ed , “ [m ]ere in equa li ty in b arg ai ni ng po wer . . . is n ota su ffi ci en t re as on to

ho ldth atarb it rat io n a gr eem en ts are n ev er en fo rceabl e . . . .” Gilm er v . In te rs ta te /J oh ns on Lane Co rp ., 50 0 U.S. 2 0, 3 3, 1 11 S. Ct. 1 64 7, 1 65 5 (1 99 1) . The di stric t co urt al so cri ti ci zedth e arb it rat io n c laus e as “ no t co ns pi cu ou s” be cau se itis “bu rie d o n t he twen ty-seco ndpa ge of aforty pag e, si ng le -s pa ced , fin e pr in t d oc um en t,” b utth e d is tri ctco urt o ve rlo ok s o th er as pe ct s o f th e d oc um en t th atm ak e ap pa ren t the ag reem en t t o arb itrat e. The a rb it rat io n c laus e is

“ cap it al iz edin th e . . . tab le of c on te nt s,” a ndanin tro du ct ory pa rag rap h t o t he cl au se urg es acco un t h ol de rs to READ THI S PROVIS IO N CAREFULLY AS IT WI LL HAVE A SUBSTANTI AL IMPACT O N HOW LEGAL CLAIMS YOU AND WE HAVE AGAI NST EACH O THE R an d e xp la in s i n b ol d t y

pe se t wha t k in ds of d is pu te s ar e subjec t t o a rb it rat io n. Th e Supr em e Co urt i nv al id at ed in Doct or ’s Ass oc ia te s, In c. v. Ca sa ro tt o, 5 17 U.S. 68 1, 1 16 S. Ct. 1 65 2 (1 99 6) , a requi rem en t u nd er s ta te law t ha t o pe rat edto “ si ng l[e ] ou t arbi tra ti on pro vi si on s fo r su sp ectst atus ” o n t he gro un d t ha t the Fed eral Arbi tra ti on Act re qu ire s t ha t “ su ch pr ov is io ns be pl aced‘ up on th e sa m e fo ot in g a s o th er co nt ract s.’” Id. at68 7, 1 16 S. Ct . at 1 65 6 (q uo ti ng Sch erkv. Al be rto -Cu lv er Co ., 41 7 U.S. 5 06 , 51 1, 9 4 S . Ct. 24 49 , 24 53 (19 74 )). Neit he r th e d is tri ctco urt, n orth e Bu ffi ng to ns on ap pe al , cit e an y cas e la w requi rin g t ha t n ot ic e o f orth e p ro vi si on s re la ti ng to arb it rat io n b e 8“ co ns pi ci ou s” an d, ev enif t hi s wer e th e st an da rd , th e la ng ua ge in th e Bu ffi ng to ns ’

ag reem en t re ga rd in g arb it rat io n i s co ns pi ci ou s. Th e arb it rat io n a gr eem en t i s n ot pr oc edur al ly unc on sc io nabl e. The Fed eral Arbi tra ti on Act p ro vi de s t ha t an arb it rat io n a gr eem en t “ sh al l b e . . . enfo rceabl e, sa ve up on su ch gro un ds as e xi stat l aw or in equi ty for [i ts ] rev oc at io n.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. The arb it rat io n c laus e in th e Bu ffi ng to ns ’ ag reem en t i s ne it he r pr oc edur al ly norsubs ta nt iv el y un co ns ci on ab le . Becau se SunTru stis en ti tl edto “ anord er d ire ct in g t ha t s uc h a rb it rat io n p ro ceedin th e m an ne r pr ov id ed fo r in [it s d ep os it ] ag reem en t,” i d. § 4, we n eedno t ad dr es s the alt ern at iv e arg um en t o f Su nTru stab ou t s ev erab il it y . IV. CONCLUSI ON W e REVERSE th e o rd er tha t d en ie d t he ren ewedm ot io n o f Su nTru stto co m pe l the Bu ffi ng to ns to arb itrat io n. We REMAND with i ns tru ct io ns to co m pe l arb it rat io n. REVERSED AND REMANDED WI TH I NSTRUCTI ONS .

9