Opinion ID: 794138
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applying the trilogy

Text: 64 To reiterate, Plaintiffs assert that the arbitration agreements prevent them from vindicating their statutory rights in the following ways. The agreements: (1) provide for limited discovery; (2) establish a shortened statute of limitations period; (3) bar recovery of treble damages; (4) prevent recovery of attorney's fees; and (5) prohibit class arbitration. Comcast contends that none of these assertions raise a question of arbitrability. 65 We must first decide whether an arbitrator or a court should resolve each of the vindication of statutory rights claims, i.e., whether a question of arbitrability is actually raised. That inquiry requires us to apply the principles we have culled from the Court's decisions in Howsam, PacifiCare, and Bazzle. Then, if a question of arbitrability is indeed raised by any of Plaintiffs' assertions, we must decide the merits of that assertion. By the merits we mean the question of whether the particular challenge raised by Plaintiffs to the arbitration agreements is a valid defense to the demand for arbitration. By the merits we do not mean the underlying dispute, i.e., Plaintiffs' antitrust claims against Comcast. 66