Spain Mexico
Philadelphia, PA Cherry Hill, NJ New York, NY Roseland, NJ 1-866-LOCKSLAW
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

BREAKING NEWS: The US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy publish staff report entitled "Baby Foods are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury" 

Locks Law Firm
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Get Started
  • No win, no fee
  • Free consultation
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • Practice Areas
  • Practice Areas
    • All Practice Areas
    • Asbestos and Mesothelioma
    • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Dangerous Pharmaceuticals
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Get Started
  • Spain Mexico   Spanish
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ

    One of the most prominent personal injury law firms in the tri-state region, the Locks Law Firm is steadfastly committed to protecting the rights of seriously injured victims.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Asbestos and Mesothelioma
    • Mesothelioma
    • Asbestosis
    • Mesothelioma Symptoms
    • Mesothelioma Attorneys
    • Mesothelioma Litigation Information
    • Mesothelioma FAQs

    Exposure to asbestos has been directly linked with the development of malignant mesothelioma, lung and other forms of cancer, and asbestosis, a chronic inflammation of the lungs.

    Learn more about Mesothelioma, Asbestosis, Mesothelioma Symptoms, Mesothelioma Attorneys, Mesothelioma Litigation, and Mesothelioma FAQ.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Asbestos and Mesothelioma
    • Benzene
    • Chemical Exposure
    • Lead Poisoning
    • Manganese Exposure
    • Natural Resource Damages
    • Toxic Injuries
    • Workplace Exposure

    Exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace or environment can cause serious, sometimes fatal health problems, including cancer.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Burns and Chemical Burns
    • Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
    • Traumatic Brain Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
    • Wrongful Death

    Catastrophic personal injuries include brain and spinal cord injuries, severe burns, carbon monoxide poisoning and, most seriously, death.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Dangerous Pharmaceuticals
    • Zantac (ranitidine)

    At the Locks Law Firm, our pharmaceutical litigation and defective drug lawyers are committed to serving personal injury victims and are well versed in the product liability laws that protect consumers.

    Free Case Evaluation

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

(215) 893-0100

Cherry Hill, NJ

(856) 663-8200

New York, NY

(212) 838-3333

Roseland, NJ

(973) 671-1940

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

The Curtis Center
Suite 720 East
601 Walnut Street

Cherry Hill, NJ

801 North Kings Highway

New York, NY

800 Third Ave 11th Floor

Roseland, NJ

3 Becker Farm Road
Suite 105

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

PAinfo@lockslaw.com

Cherry Hill, NJ

NJinfo@lockslaw.com

New York, NY

NYinfo@lockslaw.com

Roseland, NJ

info@lockslaw.com

Blog

Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela

Untitled design 1 - Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela

On April 30, 2018 in Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in a class arbitration case coming out of the Ninth Circuit.  The issue in Varela is whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) precludes an interpretation of an arbitration agreement that may authorize class arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in arbitration agreements.  The Ninth Circuit held that even though the arbitration clause did not mention “class arbitration”, mutual assent to class arbitration could be inferred from the language that “arbitration shall be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings” and a description of the substantive arbitral claims.  This issue is important to consumers nationwide because if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the Ninth Circuit and disallows class arbitration in Varela, consumers subject to many other arbitration clauses from which class arbitration may be more readily inferred than the one in Varela could be precluded from seeking class arbitration and leveling the playing field against companies committing rampant consumer fraud.

In Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court held that a district court could not order arbitration to proceed using class procedures unless there was a “contractual basis” for concluding that the parties have “agreed to” class arbitration. 559 U.S. 662, 684 (2010) (emphasis in original). The Court explained that courts may not “presume” such consent from “mere silence on the issue of class arbitration” or “from the fact of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.” Id. at 685, 687.

The petitioner company in Varela argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should hear this case because the contract’s arbitration language relied upon by the Ninth Circuit to grant class arbitration, merely identified arbitration “as the agreed-upon substitute for litigation in court”, and did not prescribe that “the arbitration will take place under the same procedures available in court, such as the class device.” Pet. App. at 3 (emphasis in original).  The Varela petitioner argued that the Ninth Circuit co-mingled the arbitration clause’s language about substantive claims and remedies from court proceedings that would be available in the arbitration proceeding with courts’ procedural rules, which would not be so available.

The respondent consumer in Varela argued that the Ninth Circuit got it right by applying generally applicable principles of California contract law to the arbitration clause’s specific language and finding that the parties agreed to include class arbitration within the arbitration provision.

The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court granted the company’s petition would appear to favor an eventual reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s decision.  The real question may be how wide a scope will the Supreme Court ruling be if it vacates the Ninth Circuit’s order. The Court could issue a narrow decision holding that the specific language in the arbitration agreement in Varela does not demonstrate inferred consent to class arbitration under Stolt-Nielsen, or the Court could issue a broader decision finding that unless a court finds the phrase or words “class arbitration”, “arbitration on a class-wide basis” or something similar, consent to class arbitration can never be inferred and ordered.  On the other hand, the Court could uphold the Ninth Circuit’s decision, holding that Varela was merely an interpretation of California contract law and relying on the fact that the ambiguity in the adhesive contract should be resolved in against the drafter, the company, and in favor of the consumer.  This would seem to be the more sound decision because while the company argued to the Court that the arbitration clause’s language was “found in virtually any standard arbitration clause”, there seems to be nothing in the actual record to support that statement.  That clear threat issued to the Supreme Court that class arbitration is going to be granted wholesale if the Court affirms the Ninth Circuit decision seems baseless and a red herring.  The Ninth Circuit decision appears to be a reasoned and restrained contractual interpretation based solely on this contract’s specific provisions, and should accordingly be upheld.

Andrew Bell

Guest Author
June 19, 2018 Andrew Bell

Tell Us About Your Case

If you can read this, please avoid filling the following input field or your submission may be marked as spam.
Thank you for contacting us! We will be in touch with you shortly.
Uh oh. There was a problem processing your request. Please try again!
Previous Entry

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Analyzes Specific Jurisdiction post Bristol Myers Squibb

Next Entry

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is Retiring. The Environment, Already in Danger, is Further in Peril

Recent Entries

  • "Significant levels of toxic heavy metals" found in popular baby foods: report
  • New York Fourth Department Win on Personal Jurisdiction in Benzene Case
  • Looking to the Future: American Law in 2021
  • Partner Jennifer Emmons' $4 Million Award for Birth Injury Case
  • RBG, A Father, & Daughters

Archive

  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • February 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • September 2011
  • January 2011
  • November 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
1-866-LOCKSLAW
info@lockslaw.com
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube
U.S. News Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubble Award Ten Leaders

Copyright © 2021 Locks Law Firm. Made by Mindlark.

Locks Law Firm only provides legal advice after having entered into an attorney client relationship, which our website specifically does not create. Conversations that originate from website messaging, chat or other two way web based engagement  do not create an attorney client relationship. It is imperative that any action taken be done on the advice of counsel. Because every case is different, the description of awards and cases previously handled do not guarantee a similar outcome in current or future cases. The firm practices law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey & New York as Locks Law Firm. Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America and other organizations that rate attorneys are not designations that have been approved by the State Supreme Courts or the American Bar Association.