Document: 539 U.S. 444 GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP., NKA CONSECO FINANCE CORP.v.BAZZLE ET AL., IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY ON BEHALF OF CLASS AND FOR ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AL. No. 02-634. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 22, 2003. Decided June 23, The Bazzle respondents and the Lackey Buggs separately entered into contracts with petitioner Green Tree Financial Corp. that were governed by South Carolina law included an arbitration clause Federal Arbitration Act. Each set filed a state-court action, complaining Tree's failure to provide them form would have told their right name own lawyers insurance agents violated law, seeking damages. Bazzles moved for class certification, sought stay court proceedings compel arbitration. After certified compelled arbitration, selected, Bazzles' consent, arbitrator who later awarded damages attorney's fees. trial confirmed award, appealed, claiming, among other things, was legally impermissible. Buggses also certification denied motion, finding agreement unenforceable, but state appeals reversed. parties then chose arbitrator, same chosen arbitrate dispute. it appealed. State withdrew both cases from court, assumed jurisdiction, consolidated proceedings. That held silent in respect they consequently authorized had properly taken form. Held: judgment is vacated, case remanded. 351 S. C. 244, 569 E. 2d 349, vacated JUSTICE BREYER, joined SCALIA, SOUTER, GINSBURG, concluded must determine whether forbid Pp. 450-454. (a) argues are not silent—that If silent, court's holding flawed on its terms; neither said nor implied parties' forbidden it. Whether about presents disputed issue contract interpretation. say disputes "shall be resolved . one selected us [Green Tree] consent you customer]." "selected by" "with of" customers, named plaintiffs. And insofar as members agreed proceed consented well. did independently select this dispute members, contain such requirement decided literal terms. Tree]" means no (even identical) another customer" question at issue: Do arbitration? Given broad authority elsewhere bestow upon answer completely obvious. submit "[a]ll disputes, claims, or controversies arising relating relationships which result contract." what mean "relating contract" resulting "relationships." Hence seem judge, relevant question, any doubt "`scope arbitrable issues'" should "`in favor arbitration.'" Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. 614, 626. here does fall limited circumstances where courts assume intended courts, arbitrators, decide particular arbitration-related matter, concerns clause's validity applicability underlying kind proceeding to, concern statute judicial procedures, cf. Volt Information Sciences, Inc. Board Trustees Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 468, rather interpretation procedures. Arbitrators well situated question. 450-453. (b) With yet obtained decision foresee. Regarding plaintiffs, wrote issued order granting subsequently administered without further involvement. As certify after determined identical there aware decision. On balance, least strong likelihood arbitrator's reflected than 453-454. STEVENS controlling Court, because BREYER'S opinion expresses view close his own, he concurs judgment. 454-455. J., announced delivered opinion, JJ., joined. STEVENS, concurring dissenting part, post, p. 454. REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR KENNEDY, joined, 455. THOMAS, 460. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT SOUTH CAROLINA Carter G. Phillips argued cause petitioner. him briefs Paul J. Zidlicky, Alan Kaplinsky, Mark Levin, Wilburn Brewer, Jr., Robert Byrd, Herbert W. Hamilton. Cornelia T. L. Pillard respondents. her brief Mary Leigh Arnold, Steven Hamm, Bradford P. Simpson, B. Randall Dong, Alexander Beard, Charles Dibble, Richard Kelly.* BREYER GINSBURG join. 1 This between commercial lender each contains providing all contract-related disputes. (1) clauses might take (2) that, circumstance, interprets permitting 349 (2002). We granted certiorari consistent Act, 9 § et seq. 2 faced outset problem concerning contracts' silence. Are fact do contends? Court's holding, important resolve But we cannot so, simply matter decide. Because record suggests received interpretation, vacate remand so may 3 * In 1995, Lynn Burt secured home improvement loan Tree. contract, following clause: 4 "ARBITRATION—All contract. shall binding you. made pursuant transaction interstate commerce, Act section 1. PARTIES VOLUNTARILY KNOWINGLY WAIVE ANY RIGHT THEY HAVE JURY TRIAL, EITHER PURSUANT ARBITRATION UNDER THIS CLAUSE OR ACTION BY US (AS PROVIDED HEREIN). agree understand powers provided These include legal equitable remedies, including, money damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief." App. 34 (emphasis added, capitalization original). 5 Respondents Daniel George Florine security agreements purchase mobile homes contained were, respects, clause. (Their substitute word "you" "Buyer[s]" italicized phrase.) C., 264, n. 18, 2d, 359, 18 deleted). 6 At time transactions, apparently failed these customers required space write those names. See Code Ann. 37-10-102 (West 2002). two sets before now separate actions 7 1997, asked claims action. January 5, 1998, action compelling 7. consent. administering eventually $10,935,000 statutory along Pet. Cert. 27a-35a, appealed Appeals 8 earlier begun similar they, too, certification. initially pursued interlocutory appeal Corp., 330 388, 498 898 (1998). indeed December 18. proceeded hear ultimately ruled class, $9,200,000 addition award. 36a-54a. 10 Appeals, 249, 351. consider II 11 determination raises preliminary there, here, deal argument outset, if right, 12 themselves CHIEF believes right; indeed, clearly ignore federal normally governs matters, see 454 (STEVENS, part), reverse outright, 458-460 (REHNQUIST, dissenting). points out 110a. 458. finds inconsistent requirement. all, involves customer, (represented) taking place initial, customer's 13 believe, however, language clear Chief Justice believes. 14 Of course, members. additional terms (I) Tree]." literally occurred. (II) customer." implicitly see, e. g., 110a (the grant "all powers," including certain "provided contract"), 15 time, automatically accept resolution contract-interpretation Under contracts, question—whether forbids arbitration—is Ibid. added). (i. e., use procedures) First Options Chicago, Kaplan, 514 938, 943 (1995) (arbitration "matter contract"). matter—about issues'"—we 626 (1985). 16 circumstances, (in absence "clea[r] unmistakabl[e]" evidence contrary). AT&T Technologies, Communications Workers, 475 643, 649 (1986). instances typically involve matters "contracting likely expected court" Howsam Dean Witter Reynolds, 537 79, 83 They gateway valid concededly applies type controversy. generally Howsam, supra. John Wiley & Sons, Livingston, 376 543, 546-547 (1964) (whether survives corporate merger); AT&T, supra, 651-652 labor-management layoff controversy falls within scope clause). 17 here—whether arbitration—does narrow exception. It parties. Unlike Options, wanted judge matter. S., 942-945. Rather to. 474-476 (1989). considerations, sweeping questions committed Cf. (finding roughly reasons procedural "gateway matter"). III arbitration—the far "trial "an certification" "administered" "without involvement court." 250-251, 352. adds "the imposed Brief Petitioner 30. deny 13, can find convincing support denial. 19 happened less clear. hand, individual arbitrated dispute) wrote: "I based my careful review broadly drafted prepared Tree." 84a suggested oral made. Tr. Oral Arg. 39. 20 decision, since plaintiffs impose procedures part done so. Record Appeal 516-518. below (where took opposite position), maintained "to extent" permitted case), "it reaffirmation and/or adoption [the c]ourt's prior determination." 1708, 2. 31-32, 21 being interpretation—thereby enforcing according 2; Volt, 478-479. 22 remanded 23 So ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici curiae urging reversal American Bankers Association al. Louis R. Cohen, Christopher Lipsett, Eric Mogilnicki, Michael D. Leffel; Chamber Commerce States Evan M. Tager, Miriam Nemetz, Jeffrey Sarles, Robin Conrad; National Council Chain Restaurants Floyd III; DirectTV, Landau Dale H. Oliver; Equal Employment Advisory Ann Elizabeth Reesman Rae Vann; New England Legal Foundation Mason Malamut; Washington Popeo A. Samp. amici affirmance AARP Stacy Canan, Schuster, Deborah Zuckerman, Nina Simon, Jean Constantine-Davis; Law Professors David Schwartz, Alderman, Belton, Dwight Golann, Catherine Fisk, Peter Linzer, Stempel, Clyde Summers, Katherine Van Wezel Stone, Gerald Thain; Lawyers' Committee Civil Rights Seymour, Mollica, Gary Johnson, Stuart Meiklejohn, Norman Redlich, Barbara Arnwine, Thomas Henderson, Dennis Hayes, Vincent Eng, Elaine Jones, Chachkin, Stroup, Judith Lichtman, Jocelyn Frye; Trial Lawyers Public F. Bland, Jr. 24 part. 25 govern agreement. has class-action arbitrations permissible prohibited applicable agreement, issue. 262-266, 359-360 There nothing precludes either determinations Carolina. 475-476 26 Arguably been first instance court. 79 conduct correct merely challenged merits claiming wrong decisionmaker, need possible error. 27 Accordingly, I affirm Were adhere preferred disposition case, Court. avoid outcome, Breyer's concur Screws States, 325 91, 134 (1945) (Rutledge, result). 28 whom KENNEDY join, dissenting. 29 (FAA), under could even though permit plurality vacates remands make determination. contravenes therefore pre-empted FAA. 30 involved like many agreements, terse. Its operative sentence: 31 "All you." 34. 32 submitted given considerable deference courts. Major League Baseball Players Assn. Garvey, 532 504, 509-510 (2001) (per curiam). relied principle deciding abuse discretion allowing 266-268, 361-362 contractual parties, arbitrator. stated 945 (1995): 33 "[G]iven party forced only issues specifically why hesitate interpret silence ambiguity `who arbitrability' point giving arbitrators power, doing too often force unwilling reasonably thought decide." Just fundamental submitted. Those provisions sentence quoted above, difficult more other. hesitation saying choice component him. 35 Thus, controlled our recent There, self-regulatory organization exchange member." Id., 81 (internal quotation marks omitted). Securities Dealers (NASD), organization's "Uniform Submission Agreement" NASD's "Code Procedure." 82. code, turn, limitation. limitation provision: 36 "`"[P]rocedural" grow bear final disposition' presumptively [& 557 (1964)] (holding steps grievance procedure completed, prerequisites arbitration). So, presumption `allegation[s] waiver, delay, defense arbitrability.'" 84. 37 think how much akin arbitrated, "allegations defenses arbitrability," Howsam. 38 "States regulate clauses, general principles," Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. Dobson, 513 265, 281 (1995). "[T]he private ordinarily sit review." 474 "state nonetheless extent actually conflicts law—that is, `stands obstacle accomplishment execution full purposes objectives Congress.'" 477 (quoting Hines Davidowitz, 312 52, 67 (1941)). 39 coverage 257, 355. "central purpose" FAA ensure enforced terms." Mastrobuono Shearson Lehman Hutton, 53-54 479 omitted)). Doctor's Associates, Casarotto, 517 681, 688 (1996); 947. words, Congress "place footing contracts." Scherk Alberto-Culver Co., 417 506, 511 (1974) aim "requires rigorously enforce arbitrate," (1985) Reynolds 470 213, 221 omitted)), "give effect rights expectations parties," 479. Motors, ("[A]s intentions control"). 40 FAA, "parties free structure fit." Here, saw fit expressly defines "us" petitioner, respondent specific ("`We' `us' Seller successors assigns"; "`You' `your' Buyer above guarantor, jointly severally" added)). specifies "disputes.. from... provisions, ignores, ante, 450-451, quite select, buyer buyer. 41 While observation availability class-wide true, imposition just-quoted provision selection To sure, [petitioner] Bazzles, Lackey, Buggses. 34-36. choose 3,734 when foisted different some disputes; reasonable concentrating risk substantial awards hands single correctly concedes, 32, 42, prohibit choosing classwide basis. choose. 42 "Arbitration coercion." regime contrary express chosen. "agreemen[t] [its] Mastrobuono, 54 43 44 continue believe seq., apply 285-297 (Thomas, 689 (1996) For reason, ground pre-empting leave undisturbed

Category: 7