2002-05-22 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . As a general proposition, it is not disputed that cable companies have the right to enter into contracts between themselves and others, free from governmental control, so long as such contracts are not unconscionable or oppressive and do not impair the obligation of the company to discharge its public duties.2 Indeed, such authority is generally recognized in the Franchises. For example, Section 2.7 of the RamseyMlashington Franchise expressly acknowledges the authority of AT&T Broadband to adopt rules, regulations, terms, and procedures governing its business, at least so long as such rules, regulations, terms, and procedures "shall not be in conflict with ... the laws of the State of Minnesota... or any other body having lawful jurisdiction." Section 13.4 of the Franchise provides that the Company shall comply with any changes in state or federal law regardless of whether they conflict with the Franchise. As described in more detail below, we believe that no violation of any law has been established and that the Arbitration Provisions are appropriate. Minnesota Courts recognize arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution In 1973, the Minnesota Supreme Court formally acknowledged that "Minnesota has consistently looked on arbitration as a proceeding favored in the law."3 Minnesota courts still follow this policy.' As recent as 1995, the Minnesota Court of Appeals recognized that [t]he primary intent of arbitration is to encourage resolution of disputes in a forum created and controlled by the parties in their written agreement, and to discourage Iitigation.5 Similarly, Minnesota courts acknowledge the "strong federal policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements.s Over the past two decades, the United States Supreme Court has consistently found arbitration to be favored in the law and, in fact, reflected this preference and upheld arbitration in five separate arbitration related decisions last terms.7 The Arbitration Provisions are legally valid. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires enforcement of Arbitration Provisions, and preempts inconsistent state laws.s In 1984, the United States Supreme Court held that a California franchise law provision (which rendered arbitration agreements 2 BellSouth Telecom, Inc. v. MCIMetro Access Transmission Services, Inc., 278 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2002). . 3 Ehlert v. Westem Nat'! Mut. Ins. Co., 207 NW.2d 334,336 (Minn. 1973). · See Ottman v. Fadden, 575 NW.2d 593, 597 (Minn. App. 1998) (noting "strong tederal policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements"); Independent School Dist. No.. 279 v. Winkelman Bldg. Corp., 530 NW.2d 583, 586 (Minn. App. 1995) ("[a]rbitration is a proceeding favored in law"). 5 Independent School Dist. No.. 279 V. Winkelman Bldg. Corp., 530 N.W.2d al586 (Minn. App. 1995) 6 Ottman v. Fadden, 575 NW. 2d at 597. 7 See Circuit City Stores, Inc. V. Adams, 121 S. Ct. 1362 (2001). C&L Enterprises v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe, 121 S. Ct. 1589 (4/30/01). Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. UMW Dist. 17,121 S. Ct. 462 (2000). Major League Baseball Players Assn. Garvey, 121 S. Ct. 1724 15/14/01). Green Tree Financial Corp. V. Randolph, 121 S. Ct. 513 (2000). See 9 U.S.C. S 2; Southland Corp v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 10(1984). 3 P.38