Addendum...Of Interest this Week.

Posted on January 21, 2011 by Audrey Rounds

New articles on Product Liability, Fair Employement and Food & Drug Safety:

- Recall of "Toxic Waste" brand candy for being, well, Toxic ! article by Brandon Brouillette

- FDA Sets new limits of Acetaminophen in prescription drugs, article by Andrew Brown

- Employers Discriminate in New Ways and Against new Targets, article by Katie McSweeney 

- Who Wouldn't Rather Sit than Stand? Employers should provide you with seating!

- Think Twice before sending E-mails from Work, article by Corina Valderrama

- Glaxo Smith Kline puts adise a few Billions to cover Avandia Litigation costs, article by Tommy Sands

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are Consumer Class Actions In Danger of Becoming Obsolete?: Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on the Pivotal Issue of Contractual Class Action Bans

Posted on November 10, 2010 by Katie McSweeney

On November 9th the business-friendly Roberts Court heard oral argument on the pivotal issue of whether the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts a state court’s ability to strike down a contractual class action ban. If the Court ultimately rules in AT&T’s favor, corporations will have the right to contractually prohibit consumers from pursuing class action relief. Meaning that, as confounding as it may sound, the next time you are presented with pages of endless fine print in connection with a purchase or service agreement, you could be unwittingly signing away certain legal rights, and be doing so as part of a perfectly legal transaction.

The case at issue, Concepcion v. AT&T Mobility, LLC was initially brought as a straightforward class action claim by a husband and wife who signed a contract with AT&T for wireless service under the guise that the contract would include two “free” cell phones, which in reality came with a litany of undisclosed service charges amounting to roughly $30. However, the seemingly simple case took on new and far more significant meaning when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California declined to dismiss the case on the grounds proffered by AT&T- that the Concepcions, in signing a fine print laden contract for their wireless service, had agreed to pursue arbitration and forego class action litigation in the event of a legal dispute.

When AT&T appealed the ruling in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the issue at hand was not whether or not the company had defrauded a class of consumers to the tune of $30 each, but whether a Federal Act reaching back to 1925 trumps a state’s court’s ability to rule that a ban on class action litigation is unconscionable. The subject Act protects arbitration provisions which are common in consumer contracts and require that a consumer resolve their legal disputes in the more informal arena of arbitration rather than seeking relief through the court system. However, this seemingly innocuous tool often translates in practice to an unfair advantage to corporations who, as was the case with AT&T's provision, can force plaintiffs to arbitrate at pre-selected, privately owned firms that may or may not be in the corporation’s back pocket. At the very least, such a provision denies consumers the right to select the vehicle with which to pursue their grievance. For these reasons, California courts have consistently found such binding arbitration provisions are unconscionable, and not surprisingly the 9th Circuit adhered to California precedent and affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

However, it is equally unsurprising that AT&T was not content to let the 9th Circuit’s ruling stand and sought Supreme Court review. While the Supreme Court granting review of the decision was a blow to consumers in and of itself, it remains unclear how the Court will rule following yesterday’s oral argument. This is a promising sign given the Court’s history of skepticism towards class actions and tendency to protect arbitration provisions. Fueling the Court’s uncertainty may be the fact that ruling in favor of AT&T’s preemption argument would require it to affirmatively reject the California Supreme Court’s holding that class action waivers in form contracts are unconscionable, a proposition that prompted the notoriously conservative Justice Scalia to ask “are we going to tell the State of California what it has to consider unconscionable?”.

That said, the conservative Court could go either way and a victory for AT&T could have devastating and far-reaching consequences for consumer rights as it would leave many consumers with no legitimate redress for corporate harms. Although, perhaps even more concerning is the likelihood that deceptive business practices will increase exponentially without the threat of class action litigation to serve as a deterrent.
Tags: , , , , ,

Who is Katie McSweeney?

Posted on June 23, 2010 by Breanna Wilson

Q: What's your favorite thing to do on your day off?  A: Either hiking with my dog or going to see live music at the Hollywood Bowl.

Q: What’s your favorite song right now?  A: I recently made a very eclectic mix with all the songs that I love right now. It has some new songs along with some old favorites, including: Lady Gaga, Rufus Wainwright, Metric, Arcade Fire, Crosby, Stills & Nash, and Joni Mitchell. It has the perfect song to fit every mood.

Q: What is your favorite food? A: I love French food. My idea of a perfect meal is a cheese plate followed by mussels with French fries.

Q: Who was your favorite TV character when you were younger?  A: Punky Brewster

Q: If you were stranded on a desert island, what three items would you take with you?  A: My ipod, a Kindle loaded with plenty of reading material, and some kind of musical instrument that I would teach myself to play in all the spare time I would finally have.

Q: What are five things you can’t live without? A:  My ipod, my Blackberry, GPS, caffeine, and NPR.

Q: If you had one million dollars, what would you do with it? A: Give to charity and travel the world.

Q: What’s your motto/advice you live by? A: Always welcome a challenge.

Q: Why did you choose to be a plaintiff attorney? A: I was drawn to the idea of being able to seek justice for individuals who had been wronged, regardless of their financial situation.

Q: What is your most memorable case experience? A: Working with clients and other firms all across the country on a Multi-District Litigation dealing with art auctions held on cruise ships. It’s given me new insight on both the art world and the cruise industry.

Q: What do you love the most about your job? A: The fact that I get to have a lot of contact with the clients that I represent which makes me feel deeply invested in the causes we pursue.

Q: Any advice to clients? A: Hold on to all of your documents and keep track of where you put them, even if you don’t think you’ll ever need them… you’d be surprised!

                     Katie can be reached by email at kmcsweeney@kpalawyers.com.

 

Tags: , ,

KPA October Newsletter

Posted on September 24, 2009 by Breanna Wilson

Check out the KPA October 2009 Newsletter which includes articles by associates Katie McSweeney, Abi Gnanadesigan and Deborah Khantamour.

 

Tags: , , , , ,