Source: http://loreelawfirm.com/blog/category/united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-ninth-circuit/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:35:47+00:00

Document:
SCOTUS Decides AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion!
April 27th, 2011 Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Practice and Procedure, Unconscionability, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on SCOTUS Decides AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion!
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Associate Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion and Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented, joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion: What Would Cousin Vinny Have to Say About The Ninth Circuit’s Interpretation of the Equal Footing Principle?
December 10th, 2010 Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, California State Courts, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion: What Would Cousin Vinny Have to Say About The Ninth Circuit’s Interpretation of the Equal Footing Principle?
September 30th, 2010 Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion: What is the Scope of Federal Preemption in Class Waiver Cases?
In our recent feature “What to Make of the Second Circuit Voiding a Class Action Waiver Under California’s Discover Bank Rule,” we briefly discussed AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893, a case which asks the United States Supreme Court to determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California’s Discover Bank rule. The Discover Bank rule deems unconscionable class action and class arbitration waivers in adhesive contracts in circumstances where a consumer alleges that a party with superior bargaining power has committed widespread but small-dollar fraud. Petitioner AT&T Mobility LLC (“AT&T Mobility”) has filed its brief (here); various organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, have filed an impressive stack of amicus curiae briefs supporting AT&T Mobility (here); Vincent and Liza Concepcion (the “Concepcions”) have filed their brief, which was posted online earlier today (here); and AT&T will presumably submit a reply brief. The Court has scheduled argument for November 9, 2010.
AT&T Mobility is an extremely important case because it will decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts certain state law unconscionability and public-policy-based rules that are principally directed at class arbitration and class action waivers. This issue has spawned a number of conflicting decisions in the state and federal courts, including Feeney v. Dell, Inc. 454 Mass. 192 (2009), a case we blogged back in 2009 (posts here and here).
These two cases involve, to some degree, the Buckeye Check Cashing/Prima Paint doctrine of severability—a/k/a “separability.” Rent-A-Center also examines the “clear and unmistakable doctrine,” under which arbitrators can decide arbitrability questions if the parties clearly and unmistakably so agree.
In the article I argue that both cases were wrongly decided by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and that, in Granite Rock, the Ninth Circuit reached the right result (an order compelling arbitration) for the wrong reasons. I predict that the United States Supreme Court will reverse the Rent-A-Center decision and vacate the Granite Rock decision.
Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation is a subscription-only publication. Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of the article can request one at this page. Subscription information is available at that page, too, as well as publisher John Wiley & Sons, here.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank CPR, and Russ Bleemer, Editor of Alternatives, for their kind assistance and support in featuring my article. Russ is not only a keen, professional editor, but a pleasure to work with as well.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.