Opinion ID: 1826077
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Patriot

Text: Tasha Mitchell Jackson purchased a mobile home manufactured by Patriot. Patriot provided Jackson with a Limited Warranty to accompany the mobile home. That warranty included the following statement (entirely in capital letters): THIS WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS, AND YOU MAY ALSO HAVE OTHER RIGHTS WHICH VARY FROM STATE TO STATE. The warranty made no mention of arbitration. In addition to signing the purchase agreement and receiving the warranty, however, Jackson signed various other documents, including a stand-alone arbitration agreement. That arbitration agreement provided, in pertinent part: All disputes, claims or controversies of every kind or nature that may arise between or among [Jackson], Retailer, Patriot, [or] ... their affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, agents or employees shall be settled by binding arbitration conducted pursuant to the provisions of 9 U.S.C. Section 1, et seq., and administered by the American Arbitration Association (`AAA') under its commercial Arbitration Rules, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any Court having jurisdiction thereof. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is the intention of [Jackson], the Retailer and Patriot to resolve by binding arbitration all disputes, whether arising out of tort, contract, or otherwise, arising from, concerning or related to the Home, its design, sale, delivery, warranties, setup, repair, installation, manufacture, performance, condition, or financing or any insurance obtained in connection with the Home, including any dispute, controversy, claim or question of any nature whatsoever related to the enforceability, validity, scope or interpretation of this Arbitration Agreement (hereinafter the `Agreement'). Arbitration under this Agreement shall be mandatory and not permissive. (Emphasis added.) The arbitration agreement further provided that all parties hereby voluntarily waive any right to a jury trial. Jackson sued Patriot asserting various claims, including violation of 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., known as the Magnuson  Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act. Patriot filed a motion to stay and to compel Jackson to arbitrate her claims, including her Magnuson-Moss Act claim. The trial court entered an order stating: Since the manufacturers' written warranty never mentions arbitration, the express warranty claims and the claims brought pursuant to [the Magnuson-Moss Act] shall not be submitted to arbitration. While the express warranty claims against [Patriot] are not required to be submitted to arbitration, pursuant to Ex parte Thicklin, 824 So.2d 723 (Ala. 2002), all other claims in the plaintiff's complaint shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the American Arbitration Association's (AAA) procedures for consumer-related disputes.