27 Plaintiffs in Verizon’s Arbitration Appeal Cite Calif. Decision as ‘Relevant’
The final June 26 decision at the California Court of Appeals in Jack v. Ring is “relevant” to the 27 consumer plaintiff-appellees trying to defend against Verizon’s bid to reverse a lower court’s denial of its motion to compel their…
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.
claims to arbitration, said the appellees’ citation of supplemental authorities Wednesday (docket 22-16020) at the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court. The appellees previously asserted every court that has ruled on the enforceability of the Verizon arbitration clause said the agreement doesn’t clearly delegate arbitrability issues to the arbitrator (see 2305300039). In their citation, the appellees said they contend “the incorporation by reference of arbitral society rules does not clearly and unmistakably delegate questions of arbitrability, particularly when, as here, a party is unsophisticated.” Jack notes the clear and unmistakable delegation standard is higher than the evidentiary standard applicable to other matters of interpreting an arbitration agreement, said the citation. Consequently, it said, the fact that Verizon “can employ traditional rules of construction to envision hypotheticals in which the American Arbitration Association and Better Business Bureau rules might theoretically be harmonizable” doesn’t establish “a clear and unmistakable delegation,” it said.