The UCL Practitioner has moved! Please visit the first and only weblog on California's Business & Professions Code section 17200 (otherwise known as the Unfair Competition Law or "UCL") at its new home, www.uclpractitioner.com.
Proposition 64:
Text of Proposition 64
Trial Court Orders
Appellate Opinions
Pending Appeals
Appellate Briefs
The CLRA:
Text of the CLRA
Class Actions:
Code Civ. Proc. §382
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
"Fairness" Act
Recent Posts:
17200 blog hiatus; please scroll down
Update on blog display problem; please scroll down
Blog display problem; please scroll down
U.S. Supreme Court rules on class action issue
New UCL decision: Buchanan v. Maxfield Enterprises...
New UCL "restitition" decision: Madrid v. Perot
Recent UCL/Prop. 64 decision: Huntingdon Life Scie...
A recent Class Action "Fairness" Act order
Supreme Court denies two more petitions for review...
Court of Appeal partially publishes McCann v. Luck...
California Law Blogs:
Bag and Baggage
California Appellate Report
California Election Law
California Labor & Employment Law
California Wage Law
Class Action Spot
Criminal Appeal
Declarations and Exclusions
Alextronic Discovery
Employment Law Observer
Freespace
Gilbert Submits
Law Limits
Legal Commentary
The Legal Reader
May it Please the Court
Ninth Circuit Blog (criminal)
Public Defender Dude
Silicon Valley Media Law Blog
So Cal Law Blog
More Law Blogs:
Abstract Appeal
Appellate Law & Practice
Between Lawyers
Blawg Republic
Blawg Review
Blog 702
Closing Argument
The Common Scold
Connecticut Law Blog
Corp Law Blog
Delaware Law Office
Dennis Kennedy
eLawyer Blog
Election Law
Employee Relations Law and News
Employment Blawg
Ernie the Attorney
Groklaw
Have Opinion, Will Travel
How Appealing
InhouseBlog
Inter Alia
Internet Cases
IP Law Observer
LawMeme
LawSites
Legal Blog Watch
Legal Tags
Legal Underground
LibraryLaw Blog
My Shingle
netlawblog
the [non]billable hour
Out-of-the-Box Lawyering
Point of Law
Real Lawyers Have Blogs
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
TechnoLawyer Blog
UnivAtty
The Volokh Conspiracy
The UCL Practitioner
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Class action waivers still unconscionable in California: Discover Bank v. Superior Court
Last Monday, June 27, the Supreme Court held that "at least under some circumstances, the law in California is that class action waivers in consumer contracts of adhesion are unenforceable, whether the consumer is being asked to waive the right to class action litigation or the right to classwide arbitration." Discover Bank v. Superior Court, ___ Cal.4th ___ (June 27, 2005) (slip op. at 2). The Court went on to explain:
We do not hold that all class action waivers are necessarily unconscionable. But when the waiver is found in a consumer contract of adhesion in a setting in which disputes between the contracting parties predictably involve small amounts of damages, and when it is alleged that the party with the superior bargaining power has carried out a scheme to deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money, then, at least to the extent the obligation at issue is governed by California law, the waiver becomes in practice the exemption of the party “from responsibility for [its] own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another.” (Civ. Code, § 1668.) Under these circumstances, such waivers are unconscionable under California law and should not be enforced.(Id. at 17.) The opinion has some very strong language concerning the importance of class actions in California. Among other things, the Court observed:
[A]s the above-cited cases of this court have continually affirmed, class actions and arbitrations are, particularly in the consumer context, often inextricably linked to the vindication of substantive rights. Affixing the "procedural" label on such devices understates their importance and is not helpful in resolving the unconscionability issue.(Id. at 15.) If the Supreme Court reaches the procedural/substantive question in the Prop. 64 retroactivity cases, this language supports the argument that the new class certification requirement is a substantive, rather than a procedural, change in the law.
(I'm back from a wonderful vacation but very annoyed with Blogger for not fixing the problem with the way the blog is displaying. At least now I'll be here to hound them about it.)
- posted by Kim Kralowec @ 10:34 AM
Comments:
Post a Comment