2002-05-22 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

litigation costs. Simply put, the Arbitration Provisions which have been adopted do not fail under the Minnesota standard of unconscionability. The Arbitration Provisions adopted by modification of the CSAs are mutual and mutually beneficial to AT&T and its customers.'6 Both AT&T Broadband and its customers benefit from the speedy, informal and affordable resolution of their disputes. Under the CSA, the costs of the arbitration is governed by the Consumer Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The AAA Rules provide that for claims of less than $10,000, a customer's contribution is limited to $125, while AT&T Broadband must, upon notice of a claim, submit $625 to the AAA. Further, under the Arbitration Provisions, AT&T Broadband agrees that a customer's cost for bringing a claim worth less than $1,000 will be just $15, which is less than the filing fee in conciliation courts.17 As a prevailing party, the customer may recover,even those limited arbitration costs that they are required to pay to initiate their claim. Along with their agreement to arbitrate claims, AT&T Broadband's customers knowingly waived their right to a jury trial of those claims. Courts have consistently recognized that ''the 'loss of the right to a jury trial is a necessary and fairly obvious consequence of the agreement to arbitrate.'"'8 As the Minnesota Court of Appeals has found, arbitration is not a violation of one's right to a jury trial.'S In addition, AT&T Broadband gave consumers specific notice that the new arbitration provisions would require resolution of disputes through binding arbitration instead of "in a court by a judge or jury or through a class action." (Original in all caps). The LFAs' assertion is evidently based on two court decisions that arose in the criminal law context, which is decidedly different from and not applicable to this circumstance:o That AT&Ts customers have not knowingly and voluntary waived their right to a jury trial is unfounded and contrary to the clear, established interpretations under Minnesota and federal law under the arbitration acts. The fact that AT&T Broadband customers have agreed to waive their right to bring their claims as a class action does not render the arbitration clause unconscionable under Minnesota law. The waiver of consolidated claims is an expectable consequence of agreeing to arbitrate, and has been upheld by the courts:' 16 Further as the subject of mutuality, we refer to our letter to Thomas D. Creighton dated March 20, 2002 (attached). 17 See Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Randolph, 121 S. Ct. 513 (2000) (holding that an agreement to arbitrate in a consumer context is enforceable even if it says nothing about the costs of arbitration); Ottman, 575 NW.2d at 597 (holding that $2900 in arbitration fees did not p'lace disproportionate burden on plaintiff such that agreement to arbitrate was unconscionable). B Bank One, 125 F. Supp. 2d at 833 (valid arbitration clause implicitly waives jury trial right) (quoting Parsley v. Terminix Int" Co., 1998 WI. 152763 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 15, 1998)). " Ottman v. Fadden, 575 N.W.2d at 597 (finding jury trial waived by arbitration agreement). 20 Marsh, 103 F. Supp. 2d at 921 (distinguishing waiver of rights in criminal context). 21 See Johnson v. West Suburban Bank, 225 F.3d 366 (3d Cir. 2000) (holding that plaintiff waived right to participate in class action by entering into arbitration agreement); Bischoff v. DirecTV, Inc., 180 F. Supp. 2d 1097, 1108 (C.D.Cal. 2002) (rejecting plaintiff'S argument that arbitration provisions are unconscionable if they prohibit class actions); Goetsch v. Shell Oil Co., 197 F.R.D. 574, 578 (W.D.N.C. 2000) (finding that arbitration clause prohibiting class actions. "valid and enforceable"); Marsh v. First USA Bank, NA, 103 F. Supp. 2d 909,923 (N.D. Tex.. 2000) (holding that "[p]laintiffs are not entitled as a matter of right to proceed as a class"); Zawikowski v. Beneficial Nat'! Bank, No. 98 C 21 78, 1999 WI. 35304, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 1999) ("[n]othing prevents the Plaintiffs from contracting away their right to a class action"). 5 P.40