Gay v. Creditinform - 3rd Circuit - December 19, 2007
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/064036p.pdf
Enforcing the contractual arbitration clause pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 USC sec. 2, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court in granting the defendant's motion to compel arbitration, on an individual basis, of the plaintiff's proposed class action under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), 15 USC 1679 et seq. and the Pennsylvania Credit Services Act (CSA), 73 P.S 2181 et seq.
The court held that plaintiff did not satisfy her "burden of establishing that Congress intended to preclude arbitration" of a claim under the CROA or that arbitration "irreconcilably conflicts" with the purposes of the CROA, citing its similar decision under the TILA in Johnson v. West Suburban Bank, 225 F3d 366, 371, 373 (3d Cir. 2000). The court said that the plaintiff, in the arbitration proceeding, would retain her "full range of rights created by the statutes" and that the right to bring a class action was created by the federal rules of civil procedure rather than the CROA. The court also stressed the possibility of administrative enforcement of the CROA by the FTC and state attorneys general, which it said "supply procedures for obtaining remedies reasonably substituting for those available in a class action."
Concerning the anti-waiver provision of the CROA, the court said that it "only prohibits waiver of the substantive obligations" imposed by the CROA and not the enforcement procedures, such as seeking relief in a judicial forum or seeking class relief.
Concerning plaintiff's claim that the arbitration clause and the contract as a whole were unconscionable, the court recognized that federal courts may apply "generally applicable contract defenses" available under state law "such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability" without running afoul of the FAA and the supremacy clause. However, the court held that "mere inequality" of bargaining power did not render a contract unconscionable, unless it approached "fraud or overwhelming economic power that would provide grounds for the revocation of any contract." The court found that the plaintiff -- who paid defendant about $5/month under the credit repair contract -- "could have walked away" from the contract and could have chosen another company to provide the services that defendant did. Her position was "different, for example, from that of a homeowner facing a mortgage foreclosure who accepts onerous refinancing terms in a desperate attempt to save her home."
The court rejected the Pennsylvania Superior Court decisions in Lytle v. CitiFinancial Services, Inc., 810 A.2d 643 (Pa. Super. 2002) and Thibodeau v. ComCast Corp., 912 A.2d 874 (Pa. Super. 2006), which struck down waivers of the right to bring a class action as unconscionable. Citing Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 (1987), the court held that Lytle and Thibodeau established state law principles that were unique to arbitration agreements, rather than applicable to contracts generally. "'A state-law principle that takes its meaning precisely from the fact that a contract to arbitrate is at issue does not comport with" the generality requirement of sec. 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The court also noted the statement in Salley v. Option One Mortgage Corp., 925 A.2d 115, 129 (Pa. 2006), that the Lytle opinion "was well intentioned" but "swept too broadly."
The court ended by stating that it expressed "no view on whether [narrowing of the application of the FAA] might be a desirable result as it is not our function to do so. Rather, our obligation is to honor the intent of Congress and that is what we are doing. If the reach of the FAA is to be confined then Congress and not the courts should be the body to do so."
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
consumer - arbitration clause - unconscionability
O'Shea v. Direct Financial Solutions, Inc. - ED Pa. December 5, 2007
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D1467P.pdf
The court held that the arbitration clause in a payday loan contract was not unconscionable, either procedurally or substantively, thus preventing the plaintiff from raising UDAP and related consumer claims in a judicial forum. The court found this result mandated by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 USC sec. 1 et seq. Section 2 makes such a clause "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist in law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." 9 USC, sec. 2 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode09/usc_sec_09_00000002----000-.html.
Unconscionability can be a ground for revocation, but a person challenging on this ground has the burden of showing that the provision is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Procedural unconscionability pertains to the process by which an agreement is reached and the form of an agreement, including the use of fine print or convoluted or unclear language, none of which was at issue here. Substantive unconscionability refers to terms that unreasonably favor one party, terms to which the unfavored party does not truly assent.
The Third Circuit has "repeatedly held that inequality in bargaining power, alone, is not a valid basis upon which to invalidate an arbitration agreement. Harris v. Green Tree Finance Corp., 183 F.3d, 173, 183 (3d Cir. 1999). The Harris court also held that mutuality of remedies - e.g., the ability of the lender but not the borrower to seek judicial enforcement - is not required of a valid arbitration clause. The instant court rejected the different reasoning in Bragg v. Linden Research Inc., 487 F.Supp. 2d 593 (ED Pa. 2007), which applied California law on unconscionability, not Pennsylvania law.
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D1467P.pdf
The court held that the arbitration clause in a payday loan contract was not unconscionable, either procedurally or substantively, thus preventing the plaintiff from raising UDAP and related consumer claims in a judicial forum. The court found this result mandated by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 USC sec. 1 et seq. Section 2 makes such a clause "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist in law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." 9 USC, sec. 2 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode09/usc_sec_09_00000002----000-.html.
Unconscionability can be a ground for revocation, but a person challenging on this ground has the burden of showing that the provision is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Procedural unconscionability pertains to the process by which an agreement is reached and the form of an agreement, including the use of fine print or convoluted or unclear language, none of which was at issue here. Substantive unconscionability refers to terms that unreasonably favor one party, terms to which the unfavored party does not truly assent.
The Third Circuit has "repeatedly held that inequality in bargaining power, alone, is not a valid basis upon which to invalidate an arbitration agreement. Harris v. Green Tree Finance Corp., 183 F.3d, 173, 183 (3d Cir. 1999). The Harris court also held that mutuality of remedies - e.g., the ability of the lender but not the borrower to seek judicial enforcement - is not required of a valid arbitration clause. The instant court rejected the different reasoning in Bragg v. Linden Research Inc., 487 F.Supp. 2d 593 (ED Pa. 2007), which applied California law on unconscionability, not Pennsylvania law.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
employment - wages - WPCL
Inoff v. Craftex Mills, Inc. - ED Pa. - December 2007
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D1457P.pdf
Suit for wages on alleged oral, three-year guaranteed contract later memorialized in a series of writings. Plaintiff was a salesman in fabric/textile industry . Motion for summary judgdment by defendant, plaintiff's purported employer, granted in part and denied in part.
choice of law -
A federal court exercising its diversity jurisdiction must apply the choice of law rules of the forum state, Klaxon Co. v. Stenton Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496-97 (1941), so Pennsylvania law was applied to this case. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted a “flexible rule which permits analysis of the policies and interests underlying the particular issue before the court.” Griffith v. United Airlines, Inc., 203 A.2d 796, 805 (Pa. 1964). The approach “gives to the place having the most interest in the problem paramount control over the legal issues arising out of a particular factual context and thereby allows the forum to apply the policy of the jurisdiction most intimately concerned with the outcome of the particular litigation.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (quoting Babcock v. Jackson, 191 N.E.2d 279, 283 (N.Y. 1963)). The Griffith “interest/contacts” approach applies to contract disputes. Restatement 2d, Conflict sec. 188(2).
what was the parties' contract?
The defendant claims that plaintiff is an indpt. contractor whose employment was terminable at will. Plaintiff alleges another contract. “Pennsylvania law requires that a plaintiff seeking to proceed with a breach of contract action must establish ‘(1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms, (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract[,] and (3) resultant damages.’” ...The first element is at issue . For a valid contract to exist, there must have been a “meeting of the minds” between the parties. A meeting of the minds is found where “both parties mutually assent to the same thing, as evidenced by an offer and its acceptance.” Since there was a genuine issue of some material facts, no summary judgment granted.
wage payment and collection law -
State statute applies only to employees,not indpt contractors . The defendant claims that plaintiff is not an "employee" under the WPCL. “Employee” is not defined by the WPCL, so Pennsylvania courts look to the state UC Law and the Worker’s Compensation Act’s definitions. ...According to the Pennsylvania courts, the following factors are relevant to the question whether one is an independent contractor: the control of the manner that work is to be done; responsibility for result only; termsof agreement between the parties; the nature of the work or occupation; the skill required for performance; whether one employed is engaged in a distinct occupationor business; which party supplies the tools; whether payment is by the time or by the job; whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer, and the rightto terminate the employment at any time.Surowski v. Commonwealth, 467 A.2d 1373, 1374 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1983). “[P]aramount . . .among these factors is the right of an individual to control the manner that another’s work is tobe accomplished.” Morin, 871 A.2d at 850.
Also at issue in the case and discussed in the opinion are: promissory estoppel and piercing the corporate veil to make individual corporate officer liable for the wages claimed.
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D1457P.pdf
Suit for wages on alleged oral, three-year guaranteed contract later memorialized in a series of writings. Plaintiff was a salesman in fabric/textile industry . Motion for summary judgdment by defendant, plaintiff's purported employer, granted in part and denied in part.
choice of law -
A federal court exercising its diversity jurisdiction must apply the choice of law rules of the forum state, Klaxon Co. v. Stenton Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496-97 (1941), so Pennsylvania law was applied to this case. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted a “flexible rule which permits analysis of the policies and interests underlying the particular issue before the court.” Griffith v. United Airlines, Inc., 203 A.2d 796, 805 (Pa. 1964). The approach “gives to the place having the most interest in the problem paramount control over the legal issues arising out of a particular factual context and thereby allows the forum to apply the policy of the jurisdiction most intimately concerned with the outcome of the particular litigation.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (quoting Babcock v. Jackson, 191 N.E.2d 279, 283 (N.Y. 1963)). The Griffith “interest/contacts” approach applies to contract disputes. Restatement 2d, Conflict sec. 188(2).
what was the parties' contract?
The defendant claims that plaintiff is an indpt. contractor whose employment was terminable at will. Plaintiff alleges another contract. “Pennsylvania law requires that a plaintiff seeking to proceed with a breach of contract action must establish ‘(1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms, (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract[,] and (3) resultant damages.’” ...The first element is at issue . For a valid contract to exist, there must have been a “meeting of the minds” between the parties. A meeting of the minds is found where “both parties mutually assent to the same thing, as evidenced by an offer and its acceptance.” Since there was a genuine issue of some material facts, no summary judgment granted.
wage payment and collection law -
State statute applies only to employees,not indpt contractors . The defendant claims that plaintiff is not an "employee" under the WPCL. “Employee” is not defined by the WPCL, so Pennsylvania courts look to the state UC Law and the Worker’s Compensation Act’s definitions. ...According to the Pennsylvania courts, the following factors are relevant to the question whether one is an independent contractor: the control of the manner that work is to be done; responsibility for result only; termsof agreement between the parties; the nature of the work or occupation; the skill required for performance; whether one employed is engaged in a distinct occupationor business; which party supplies the tools; whether payment is by the time or by the job; whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer, and the rightto terminate the employment at any time.Surowski v. Commonwealth, 467 A.2d 1373, 1374 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1983). “[P]aramount . . .among these factors is the right of an individual to control the manner that another’s work is tobe accomplished.” Morin, 871 A.2d at 850.
Also at issue in the case and discussed in the opinion are: promissory estoppel and piercing the corporate veil to make individual corporate officer liable for the wages claimed.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
employment- FMLA - notice to employer
Sarnowski v. Airbrooke Limousine, Inc - 3d Circuit - December 12, 2007
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062144p.pdf
This opinion contains a lot of good language about the requirement that an employee must give notice to the employer of the need for FMLA leave, 29 U.S.C. § 2612(e)(2)(B), 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(c). No formal written request for FMLA leave is necessary. Simple verbal notice is sufficient. The notice provision must be construed liberally. No magic words are required. The employee need not know or give the exact dates of the anticipated leave.
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062144p.pdf
This opinion contains a lot of good language about the requirement that an employee must give notice to the employer of the need for FMLA leave, 29 U.S.C. § 2612(e)(2)(B), 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(c). No formal written request for FMLA leave is necessary. Simple verbal notice is sufficient. The notice provision must be construed liberally. No magic words are required. The employee need not know or give the exact dates of the anticipated leave.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Fair Credit Reporting Act - negligent non-compliance
Perez v. Trans Union, LLC, et al. - ED Pa. - November 2007
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D1391P.pdf
Plaintiff sued for an alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 USC 1681e(b), when the defendant credit reporting agency (CRA) mistakenly reported to a car dealership that plaintiff had a good credit history but was deceased and thus had no credit score. After this same thing happened several times, matters finally got sorted out, but plaintiff claimed that he had paid more for credit because of the mistakes, which he said were caused by defendant's failure to "follow reasonable procedure to assure maximum possible accuracy of information...." as required by sec. 1681e(b).
Defendant moved for summary judgment, which in a negligent noncompliance case can only be granted in this circuit when the "evidence demonstrates as a matter of law that the procedures it [defendant] followed were reasonable." Philbin v. Trans Union Corp., 101 F3d 957, 965 (3d Cir. 1996). Judging reasonableness "involves weighing the potential harm from inaccuracy against the burden of safeguarding against such inaccuracy." Id at 963. By contrast, "[o]ther courts have concluded flatly that 'the question, of whether a credit reporting agency followed reasonable procedures is reserved for the jury.'" (citing cases)
The defendant here admitted reiterating inaccurate information, which it did not independently verify. The questions is whether it "ought to have appreciated, under the circumstances presented, that there was a material inaccuracy such that a duty arose upon it to do something to correct it or not make a report." (emphasis in original).
The court held that there had no willful noncompliance, which it said "requires more than mere knowledge." There was no evidence to show that the CRA was "consciously aware that Plaintiff contested the accuracy of the report and then proceeded to report the inaccuracy anyway." (emphasis in original)* There was no "deliberate intention to violate Plaintiff's personal rights."
The court also rejected the negligent noncompliance claim, which consists of four elements
- the inclusion of inaccurate information in a credit report
- the inaccuracy was due to a failure to follow reasonable procedures
- the consumer suffered injury
- the injury was caused by the inclusion of the inaccurate entry.
The court granted summary to defendant based on the plaintiff's "lack of rebuttal evidence" to counter that in the summary judgment record, which showed that the banks involved all got their credit evidence independently of defendant. There was an "absence of evidence that [defendant] provided a credit report about Plaintiff to any potential lender...."
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D1391P.pdf
Plaintiff sued for an alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 USC 1681e(b), when the defendant credit reporting agency (CRA) mistakenly reported to a car dealership that plaintiff had a good credit history but was deceased and thus had no credit score. After this same thing happened several times, matters finally got sorted out, but plaintiff claimed that he had paid more for credit because of the mistakes, which he said were caused by defendant's failure to "follow reasonable procedure to assure maximum possible accuracy of information...." as required by sec. 1681e(b).
Defendant moved for summary judgment, which in a negligent noncompliance case can only be granted in this circuit when the "evidence demonstrates as a matter of law that the procedures it [defendant] followed were reasonable." Philbin v. Trans Union Corp., 101 F3d 957, 965 (3d Cir. 1996). Judging reasonableness "involves weighing the potential harm from inaccuracy against the burden of safeguarding against such inaccuracy." Id at 963. By contrast, "[o]ther courts have concluded flatly that 'the question, of whether a credit reporting agency followed reasonable procedures is reserved for the jury.'" (citing cases)
The defendant here admitted reiterating inaccurate information, which it did not independently verify. The questions is whether it "ought to have appreciated, under the circumstances presented, that there was a material inaccuracy such that a duty arose upon it to do something to correct it or not make a report." (emphasis in original).
The court held that there had no willful noncompliance, which it said "requires more than mere knowledge." There was no evidence to show that the CRA was "consciously aware that Plaintiff contested the accuracy of the report and then proceeded to report the inaccuracy anyway." (emphasis in original)* There was no "deliberate intention to violate Plaintiff's personal rights."
The court also rejected the negligent noncompliance claim, which consists of four elements
- the inclusion of inaccurate information in a credit report
- the inaccuracy was due to a failure to follow reasonable procedures
- the consumer suffered injury
- the injury was caused by the inclusion of the inaccurate entry.
The court granted summary to defendant based on the plaintiff's "lack of rebuttal evidence" to counter that in the summary judgment record, which showed that the banks involved all got their credit evidence independently of defendant. There was an "absence of evidence that [defendant] provided a credit report about Plaintiff to any potential lender...."
social security disability - treating physician's opinion - claimant credibility
Wilson v. Astrue - ED Pa. November 28, 2007
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D1402P.pdf
Benefits were granted in this case, which has good discussions of the standards for
- evaluating the opinion of a treating physician, and
- judging claimant credibility.
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D1402P.pdf
Benefits were granted in this case, which has good discussions of the standards for
- evaluating the opinion of a treating physician, and
- judging claimant credibility.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
consumer - pleading - UTPCPL - no natl. bank liability under HIFA
Millege v. Chase Bank et al - ED Pa. November 26, 2007
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D1389P.pdf
Like a number of other courts, this one misstated the pleading requirements under the state consumer protection law, 73 PS 201-2(4)(xxi), holding that the particularity equivalent of fraud pleading is required. The court actually miscited and misquoted the relevant provision, citing it as sec. 201-2(4)(xvii), the pre-1996 citation, instead of sec. 201-4(xxi), and omitting the "or deceptive" language added by the 1996 amendments.
The court also held that a national bank such as Chase cannot be found liable under the state Home Improvement Finance Act (HIFA), 73 P.S. 500-408, for its alleged inclusion of a cash loan in a home improvement contract, because such liability is pre-empted by 12 USC 371 and 12 CFR 34.4, which say that such banks can make real estate loans wihtout regard to state law limitations concerning the terms of credit.
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D1389P.pdf
Like a number of other courts, this one misstated the pleading requirements under the state consumer protection law, 73 PS 201-2(4)(xxi), holding that the particularity equivalent of fraud pleading is required. The court actually miscited and misquoted the relevant provision, citing it as sec. 201-2(4)(xvii), the pre-1996 citation, instead of sec. 201-4(xxi), and omitting the "or deceptive" language added by the 1996 amendments.
The court also held that a national bank such as Chase cannot be found liable under the state Home Improvement Finance Act (HIFA), 73 P.S. 500-408, for its alleged inclusion of a cash loan in a home improvement contract, because such liability is pre-empted by 12 USC 371 and 12 CFR 34.4, which say that such banks can make real estate loans wihtout regard to state law limitations concerning the terms of credit.
consumer - title insurance - TICA & UTPCPL - exhaustion of admin. remedies
Markocki v. Old Republic Natl. Title Ins. Co. v. Citizens Abstract Co. - ED Pa. - Nov. 19, 2007
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D1382P.pdf
Held, plaintiff was entitled to sue under the Consumer Protection Law, 73 PS 201-9.2, for an alleged violation of the state Title Insurance Company Act (TICA), 40 PS 910-37(h), without first exhausting her remedies under TICA.
Plaintiff brought her case when she refinanced her mortgage and was charged a "basic rate" of $978.75 rather than a "refinance rate" of $704.70, to which she was entitled under the Rate Manual of the Title Insurance Rating Bureau, 40 PS 910-37(h). When she found out about the improper charges, she sued under RESPA, 12 USC 2607, as well as for violations of the CPL, because of the improper charges under TICA.
Old Republic joined Citizens as a 3d party defendant, because Citizens, acting as its agent under TICA, had collected the improper charges, in spite of Old Republic having told Citizens about the proper changes under the Rate Manual.
Citizens' 12(b) (6) motion to dismiss was denied. Citizens claimed that Markocki had to exhaust her remedies under TICA, which says that an aggrieved person "may be heard" under TICA concerning its insurance rating, 40 PS 910-44(b).
Relying on the "weight of authority" under
- Cohen v. Ciicago Title Insurance Co., 2006 US Dist. Lexis 36689 (ED Pa. )
- Highmark Inc v. UPMC Health Plan, 276 F3d 160 (, 168 (3d Cir. 2001), and
- Ohio Casualty Group v. Argonaut Insurance, 525 A2d 1195, 1197 (Pa. 1987)
The court held that the remedy under TICA was discretionary, optional and incomplete rather than mandatory and exclusive, and that plaintiff's case under the Consumer Protection Law should not be dismissed.
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D1382P.pdf
Held, plaintiff was entitled to sue under the Consumer Protection Law, 73 PS 201-9.2, for an alleged violation of the state Title Insurance Company Act (TICA), 40 PS 910-37(h), without first exhausting her remedies under TICA.
Plaintiff brought her case when she refinanced her mortgage and was charged a "basic rate" of $978.75 rather than a "refinance rate" of $704.70, to which she was entitled under the Rate Manual of the Title Insurance Rating Bureau, 40 PS 910-37(h). When she found out about the improper charges, she sued under RESPA, 12 USC 2607, as well as for violations of the CPL, because of the improper charges under TICA.
Old Republic joined Citizens as a 3d party defendant, because Citizens, acting as its agent under TICA, had collected the improper charges, in spite of Old Republic having told Citizens about the proper changes under the Rate Manual.
Citizens' 12(b) (6) motion to dismiss was denied. Citizens claimed that Markocki had to exhaust her remedies under TICA, which says that an aggrieved person "may be heard" under TICA concerning its insurance rating, 40 PS 910-44(b).
Relying on the "weight of authority" under
- Cohen v. Ciicago Title Insurance Co., 2006 US Dist. Lexis 36689 (ED Pa. )
- Highmark Inc v. UPMC Health Plan, 276 F3d 160 (, 168 (3d Cir. 2001), and
- Ohio Casualty Group v. Argonaut Insurance, 525 A2d 1195, 1197 (Pa. 1987)
The court held that the remedy under TICA was discretionary, optional and incomplete rather than mandatory and exclusive, and that plaintiff's case under the Consumer Protection Law should not be dismissed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)