What Is HeinOnline?
HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
Log In
![handle is hein.journals/drklr72 and id is 1 raw text is:
UNCUT GEMS: INVESTIGATING THE AUTHORITY
OF ARBITRATORS TO BIND ABSENT MEMBERS IN
CLASS ARBITRATION
Max Birmingham*
ABSTRACT
The contours of when an arbitrator may compel class arbitration is a
burning legal question that may have different outcomes based on the
circumstances. U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence has laid the foundation that
class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable even if it thwarts
plaintiffs from bringing their claims because doing so on an individual basis is
impracticable. In American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, Justice
Kagan's dissenting opinion expresses dismay that actors-namely 'big business'
may shield themselves from reprisal, even if they are engaging in questionable
conduct. That may be true, but the Court's ratiocination is arbitration contracts
are contracts no more, no less. Ordinary principles of contract law dictate
that parties must consent to class arbitration for the clause to be enforceable.
Writing for the Court in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, Justice Roberts explains that
[s]ilence is not enough tofind there is party consent. This is in consonance with
contract law, where the text reigns supreme. Mere silence will not suffice.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction .................................................................................................2
II. Current State of the Law..............................................................................5
A. United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.........................................................................................5
B. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit........................6
1. Jockl ..............................................................................................6
2. Jock II.............................................................................................9
3. Jock III..........................................................................................10
4 . Jo ck IV ..........................................................................................12
III. Similarly Situated ......................................................................................14
IV. Contract Law .............................................................................................18
V. The Doctrine of Contra Proferentem ........................................................23
* B.S., State University of New York at Empire State College; M.B.A., Northeastern
University D'Amore-McKim School of Business; J.D./M.J., Michigan State University College
of Law. The Author would like to thank the editors, staff, & faculty advisor of the Drake Law
Review.
1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/drklr72&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)