Opinion ID: 2541602
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Brewer I

Text: The trial court's judgment underlying this appeal reflects this Court's previous holding in Brewer I, wherein this Court found a class waiver unconscionable and declared an arbitration agreement unenforceable after discussing that individual arbitration, as opposed to class arbitration, would effectively result in the borrower being denied a remedy. See 323 S.W.3d at 20-24. Brewer I considered the interplay between the FAA and a title loan borrower's state-law unconscionability defenses to the underlying arbitration agreement. Id. at 20. Brewer I 's holding reflected the Supreme Court's holding in Stolt-Nielsen that where an arbitration agreement is silent with respect to class arbitration, the parties cannot be compelled to submit the dispute to class arbitration. 323 S.W.3d at 20 (citing Stolt-Nielsen, 130 S.Ct. at 1774-76, for the premise that arbitration is fundamentally a matter of consent ... limited by the scope of the arbitration agreement). Brewer I concluded that, insofar as  Stolt-Nielsen requires an affirmative consent to class arbitration before it may be compelled, no party could be forced to proceed with class arbitration. 323 S.W.3d at 21. But Brewer I agreed with the trial court's underlying holding that individual arbitration should also not be compelled, as the class arbitration waiver at issue was unconscionable and unenforceable. See 323 S.W.3d at 20-21. Brewer I found that the class arbitration waiver in that case was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Id. at 22-23. And it rejected the lender's contention that the class waiver was a valid and permissible exculpatory clause under Missouri law. Id. at 24. Brewer I stated: Given the FAA's prohibition of class arbitration under the facts of this case and the fact that the unconscionable aspects of the arbitration contract are a result of the class arbitration waiver, the appropriate remedy is to strike the arbitration agreement in its entirety. Id. The United States Supreme Court, however, granted certiorari in Brewer I in May 2011, and it summarily vacated this Court's judgment and ordered that this Court reconsider Brewer I in light of Concepcion. Mo. Title Loans, Inc. v. Brewer, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2875, 179 L.Ed.2d 1184 (Judgment vacated, and case remanded to Supreme Court of Missouri for further consideration in light of [ Concepcion. ]). [6] Now that this Court's arbitration class waiver precedent in Brewer I has been vacated by Concepcion, this Court cannot decide Title Lenders' appeal without first determining how Concepcion impacts the enforceability of Title Lenders' arbitration agreement and, specifically, its class waiver.