N.J. Decision Backs Affirming Denial of Verizon Motion to Compel, Say Appellees
Monday’s unanimous decision of the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court in Achey v. Cellco Partnership (docket 3160849) supports the arguments of 27 California consumers in MacClelland v. Cellco when they urge the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Appeals to affirm the district court’s denial of Verizon’s motion to compel their claims to arbitration (see 2303190001), said the consumers’ citation of supplemental authorities Wednesday (docket 22-16020). The New Jersey court said the “identical” Verizon arbitration agreement under review in Verizon’s 9th Circuit appeal of the denial in MacClelland “was completely unenforceable because it was permeated by unconscionability,” said the citation. “This is exactly the conclusion reached by the district court” in MacClelland, “and this is exactly the conclusion” the plaintiff-appellees ask the 9th Circuit to reach in Verizon's appeal, it said. The Achey court said the district court’s MacClelland decision is especially persuasive because California and New Jersey contract law are substantially similar, especially in their application of unconscionability, it said.