In Landry v. Transworld Systems Inc., the Massachusetts Supreme Court rejected an attempt by a collection company to channel into arbitration a class action brought by a rental car company customer, who claimed that the collection company, “by virtue of its too frequent telephone contact with him and other debtors, had engaged in improper debt collection practices in violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection act.”

“Lawsuit seeks to enforce mediation deal over Indiana estate.” Stephen Betts has this article in VillageSoup, which begins: “A participant in the protracted lawsuit over production rights to the work of the late artist Robert Indiana has asked a federal court to order the estate to abide by a supposed binding mediation agreement that would have settled the case.”

The United States District Court for the District of Tennessee has denied a lawn care provider’s motion to strike class allegations, rejecting the company’s contention that a dispute with a consumer required arbitration. According to the court, allegations that telemarketing calls to plaintiff after she cancelled her service did not arise before expiration of the agreement, and thus were not arbitrable.

A California Court of Appeal, in Felisilda v. FCA US LLC, has held that a used car purchaser’s claims against the dealer and the manufacturer were all appropriately addressed in arbitration, even though the manufacturer was not a party to the arbitration agreement, whose operative language provided as follows:

“Any claim or dispute, whether in contract, tort, statute or otherwise (including the interpretation and scope of this Arbitration Provision, and the arbitrability of the claim or dispute), between you and us or our employees, agents, successors or assigns, which arises out of or relates to . . . condition of this vehicle, this contract or any resulting transaction or relationship (including any such relationship with third parties who do not sign this
contract) shall, at your or our election, be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action. If federal law provides that a claim or dispute is not subject to binding arbitration, this Arbitration Provision shall not apply to such claim or dispute. Any claim or dispute is to be arbitrated a single arbitrator on an individual basis and not as a class action.”

Foley Hoag LLP attorneys Christopher Feudo, Crhistian Garcia and Jonathan Keselenko have authored this article in JDSupra, discussing the First Circuit’s decision in Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has this article from the Associated Press reporting that “[t]he judge overseeing a dispute between Georgia’s governor and the state’s capital over restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic has ordered the two sides to try to reach a settlement.”

Proskauer Rose LLP Attorneys Kate Gold, Philippe A. Lebel and Cole D. Lewis have this article in The National Law Review, discussing the court’s decision in Collie v. The Icee Co. The article explains the holding that, notwithstanding precedent upholding broad arbitration language, under PAGA an employee stands in the shoes of the state, and “[t]he Court simply held that because the state did not agree to arbitrate its PAGA claim, ‘Icee cannot enforce a contractual provision to bind a nonparty [the state].’”

The Connecticut Appellate Court has affirmed an arbitration award in favor of a physician against his former practice. In The Norwalk Medical Group, P.C. v. Yee, the court affirmed an award granting the physician the benefits of a buyout against the practice, but denied recovery against the individual physicians of the group. The court rejected claims that the arbitrator had rendered an imperfect award by failing to state reasons underlying his decision regarding attorney’s fees.

The Fourth Circuit in this decision has affirmed a lower court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration of a dispute arising under payday loan agreements, holding that the arbitration agreements “operated as prospective waivers” a party’s right to pursue statutory remedies.

JDSupra has published this article, by Alex Silverman of Carlton Fields, discussing the decision in Martin v. NTT Data, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00686 (E.D. Pa. June 23, 2020).