31:
304:
permit the use of class arbitration procedures. At least one scholar, however, takes the view that concerns over class arbitration are perhaps overstated. Not only does the
Federal Arbitration Act not demand a specific timeline for resolution of arbitration claims but the current practice of publishing arbitration awards suggests that the concern over confidentiality is not exclusive to class arbitration.
357:. As Chief Justice Roberts noted, class arbitrations not only sacrificed the informality of traditional bilateral arbitration, which led to lower costs and speedier resolution of disputes, but also distinctively affected the rights of absent class members. Thus, the majority concluded, agreement to such procedures could not be inferred from an ambiguous provision.
325:, which held that given the ambiguous language of the arbitration provision regarding availability of class arbitration procedures and that California law allowed courts to construe ambiguity against the drafter, the court could compel class arbitration based on Plaintiff’s interpretation of the provision. According to the Ninth Circuit majority,
320:
against the company after a data breach exposed sensitive tax information of approximately 1,300 employees, including Mr. Varela’s, and led to the filing of a fraudulent federal income tax return on his behalf. Lamps Plus moved to compel arbitration based on the employment contract which included an
303:
because some of the key features of bilateral arbitration, such as efficiency and confidentiality, are no longer guaranteed. Given these differences, and that arbitration is based on consent by the parties, the Court held that silence on the issue of class arbitration could not be interpreted to
370:
would be inconsistent with the FAA because it does not attempt to resolve what the intent of the parties actually was. This reasoning highlighted the Court’s commitment to the policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements, codified in the FAA, in spite of the fact that as
268:
proceedings. In a 5–4 decision, the
Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision and held that arbitration on a classwide basis could not be compelled based on the provision’s ambiguous language. The Court relied on its previous decision in
321:
agreement to arbitrate disputes. Although the court granted the request to compel arbitration, it allowed the arbitrator to conduct the arbitration on a classwide basis rather than on an individual basis. Lamps Plus appealed the decision to the
329:
was not controlling in this case because ‘silence’ on the issue of class arbitration meant that the parties in that case had not agreed to class arbitration procedures rather than just failed to include explicit reference in the provision.
352:
concluded that like silence, ambiguity could not support the use of class arbitration procedures. Here, the Court relied heavily on the concerns regarding the fundamental differences between class and bilateral arbitration described in
343:
The issue in front of the
Supreme Court was whether arbitration on a classwide basis could be compelled based on ambiguous language in the arbitration provision. Although Plaintiff tried to distinguish its case from
293:
270:
751:
419:
is the court’s latest iteration on restricting the availability of class arbitration procedures. The Court has repeatedly highlighted the inherent differences between class and bilateral arbitrations in
366:
doctrine, which states that ambiguity in a contract provision is to be construed against the drafter, to support the use of class arbitration provisions. It found that application of
923:
861:
812:
771:
502:
482:
79:
322:
276:
which held that class arbitration procedures could not be compelled without indication that the parties to the arbitration had agreed to these procedures.
391:’s dissent emphasized what she viewed as the oppressive nature of arbitration clauses that denied employees and consumers the ability to band together.
387:
Although the dissenting
Justices generally supported each other’s dissenting opinions, each of the four dissenting Justices wrote their own dissent.
395:
joined this opinion and Part II of
Justice Kagan’s dissent to emphasize that given that the provision was ambiguous, the Court should have applied
928:
933:
913:
918:
455:
908:
288:(“FAA”) grants courts the power to compel arbitration “in accordance with the terms of the agreement.” Class arbitrations, like
557:
766:
438:
422:
261:
35:
521:
752:
Feature: U.S. Supreme Court
Declines to Mandate Class Arbitration In Its Decision, Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela
113:
Class arbitration procedures could not be compelled based on ambiguous language in the arbitration agreement.
63:
803:
432:
399:
to resolve the ambiguity. Although he joined the dissents of
Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan in full,
299:, the Supreme Court noted that class arbitrations are inherently different than traditional bilateral
285:
247:
890:
541:
Resolving Mass Legal
Disputes through Class Arbitration: The United States and Canada Compared
865:
816:
775:
506:
486:
446:, there is now a presumption against the use of class arbitration absent explicit reference.
74:
778:
599:
509:
872:
808:
478:
8:
652:
442:. Given the Court’s emphasis on the consensual nature of arbitration in this case and in
388:
144:
362:
540:
284:
Although class procedures are not explicitly referenced in the Act, Section 4 of the
379:
is a neutral state contract interpretation rule which is not displaced by the FAA.
392:
180:
160:
136:
400:
148:
525:
902:
404:
349:
317:
289:
172:
156:
128:
881:
372:
300:
265:
168:
313:
86:
292:, purport to resolve disputes on behalf of a group of claimants. In
30:
544:, 37 N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 921, 934 (2011).
924:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
237:
Kagan, joined by
Ginsburg, Breyer; Sotomayor (Part II)
197:
Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
54:
Lamps Plus Inc. et al., Petitioners v. Frank Varela
715:, 139 S. Ct. at 1420–21 (J. Ginsburg dissenting).
436:, as well as upheld class arbitration waivers in
900:
739:, 139 S. Ct. at 1422–23 (J. Breyer dissenting).
727:, 139 S. Ct. at 1427 (J. Sotomayor dissenting).
403:wrote separately regarding the Court’s lack of
360:The Court also rejected the application of the
499:Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp.
669:
667:
665:
663:
656:, 72 Vand. L. Rev. 1119, 1158–59 (2019).
633:
631:
295:Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp
272:Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp
618:
616:
614:
612:
610:
703:, 139 S.Ct. at 1431 (J. Kagan dissenting).
456:Lists of United States Supreme Court cases
660:
628:
558:Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitration
607:
649:
24:Lamps Plus Inc. et al., v. Frank Varela
901:
592:
590:
537:
748:
603:, 94 Ind. L.J. 1447, 1485 (2019).
213:Ginsburg, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor
18:2019 United States Supreme Court case
596:
560:, Am. Arb. Ass’n, (October 8, 2003).
929:United States class action case law
767:AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
600:Arbitration and the Federal Balance
587:
439:AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
423:AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
338:
13:
934:Data breaches in the United States
914:United States arbitration case law
819:___, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1640 (2018).
755:, 67 La. B.J. 176, 176 (2019).
653:The Arbitration-Litigation Paradox
489:___, 139 S. Ct. 1407, 1415 (2019).
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
945:
919:United States Supreme Court cases
868:___ (2019) is available from:
850:
333:
264:case regarding the use of class
29:
834:
822:
796:
784:
759:
742:
730:
718:
706:
691:
679:
643:
410:
909:2019 in United States case law
575:
563:
548:
531:
515:
492:
468:
1:
461:
279:
260:, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a
891:Supreme Court (slip opinion)
7:
804:Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis
449:
433:Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis
382:
262:United States Supreme Court
10:
950:
882:Oyez (oral argument audio)
858:Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela
475:Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela
257:Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela
246:
241:
233:
225:
217:
209:
201:
193:
188:
122:
117:
112:
107:
99:
94:
69:
59:
49:
42:
28:
23:
750:
651:
598:
539:
312:In 2016 Frank Varela, a
307:
286:Federal Arbitration Act
248:Federal Arbitration Act
43:Argued October 29, 2018
860:, No. 17-988,
45:Decided April 24, 2019
793:, 559 U.S. at 684–85.
640:, 139 S. Ct. at 1415.
625:, 139 S. Ct. at 1413.
350:Chief Justice Roberts
85:139 S. Ct. 1407; 203
688:Bookman, at 1159–60.
676:, 139 S.Ct. at 1416.
318:class action lawsuit
650:Pamela K. Bookman,
375:argued in dissent,
145:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
831:, 563 U.S. at 352.
749:Anthony M. DiLeo,
584:, 559 U.S. at 687.
572:, 559 U.S. at 686.
407:to hear the case.
397:contra proferentem
377:contra proferentem
368:contra proferentem
363:contra proferentem
316:employee, filed a
133:Associate Justices
393:Justice Sotomayor
253:
252:
941:
895:
889:
886:
880:
877:
871:
844:
838:
832:
826:
820:
800:
794:
788:
782:
763:
757:
756:
754:
746:
740:
734:
728:
722:
716:
710:
704:
695:
689:
683:
677:
671:
658:
657:
655:
647:
641:
635:
626:
620:
605:
604:
602:
597:Alyssa S. King,
594:
585:
579:
573:
567:
561:
552:
546:
545:
543:
535:
529:
519:
513:
496:
490:
472:
415:The decision in
389:Justice Ginsburg
339:Majority Opinion
118:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
949:
948:
944:
943:
942:
940:
939:
938:
899:
898:
893:
887:
884:
878:
875:
869:
853:
848:
847:
839:
835:
827:
823:
801:
797:
789:
785:
764:
760:
747:
743:
735:
731:
723:
719:
711:
707:
696:
692:
684:
680:
672:
661:
648:
644:
636:
629:
621:
608:
595:
588:
580:
576:
568:
564:
553:
549:
536:
532:
520:
516:
497:
493:
473:
469:
464:
452:
413:
385:
341:
336:
314:Lamps Plus Inc.
310:
282:
181:Brett Kavanaugh
171:
161:Sonia Sotomayor
159:
147:
137:Clarence Thomas
90:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
947:
937:
936:
931:
926:
921:
916:
911:
897:
896:
852:
851:External links
849:
846:
845:
843:DiLeo, at 178.
833:
821:
795:
783:
758:
741:
729:
717:
705:
690:
678:
659:
642:
627:
606:
586:
574:
562:
547:
538:S. I. Strong,
530:
514:
491:
466:
465:
463:
460:
459:
458:
451:
448:
412:
409:
401:Justice Breyer
384:
381:
340:
337:
335:
332:
309:
306:
281:
278:
251:
250:
244:
243:
239:
238:
235:
231:
230:
227:
223:
222:
219:
215:
214:
211:
207:
206:
203:
199:
198:
195:
191:
190:
186:
185:
184:
183:
149:Stephen Breyer
134:
131:
126:
120:
119:
115:
114:
110:
109:
105:
104:
101:
97:
96:
92:
91:
84:
71:
67:
66:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
946:
935:
932:
930:
927:
925:
922:
920:
917:
915:
912:
910:
907:
906:
904:
892:
883:
874:
867:
863:
859:
855:
854:
842:
837:
830:
825:
818:
814:
810:
806:
805:
799:
792:
791:Stolt-Nielsen
787:
780:
777:
773:
769:
768:
762:
753:
745:
738:
733:
726:
721:
714:
709:
702:
699:
694:
687:
682:
675:
670:
668:
666:
664:
654:
646:
639:
634:
632:
624:
619:
617:
615:
613:
611:
601:
593:
591:
583:
582:Stolt-Nielsen
578:
571:
570:Stolt-Nielsen
566:
559:
556:
551:
542:
534:
527:
523:
522:9 U.S.C.
518:
511:
508:
504:
500:
495:
488:
484:
480:
476:
471:
467:
457:
454:
453:
447:
445:
444:Stolt-Nielsen
441:
440:
435:
434:
429:
428:Stolt-Nielsen
426:
424:
418:
408:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
380:
378:
374:
373:Justice Kagan
369:
365:
364:
358:
356:
355:Stolt-Nielsen
351:
347:
346:Stolt-Nielsen
334:Supreme Court
331:
328:
327:Stolt-Nielsen
324:
323:Ninth Circuit
319:
315:
305:
302:
298:
296:
291:
290:class actions
287:
277:
275:
273:
267:
263:
259:
258:
249:
245:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:Case opinions
187:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
135:
132:
130:
127:
125:Chief Justice
124:
123:
121:
116:
111:
106:
102:
98:
93:
88:
82:
81:
76:
72:
68:
65:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
857:
840:
836:
828:
824:
802:
798:
790:
786:
781: (2011).
765:
761:
744:
736:
732:
724:
720:
712:
708:
700:
697:
693:
685:
681:
673:
645:
637:
622:
581:
577:
569:
565:
554:
550:
533:
517:
512: (2010).
498:
494:
474:
470:
443:
437:
431:
427:
421:
416:
414:
411:Significance
405:jurisdiction
396:
386:
376:
367:
361:
359:
354:
345:
342:
326:
311:
294:
283:
271:
256:
255:
254:
242:Laws applied
176:
173:Neil Gorsuch
164:
157:Samuel Alito
152:
140:
129:John Roberts
103:559 U.S. 662
95:Case history
78:
53:
15:
301:arbitration
266:arbitration
202:Concurrence
169:Elena Kagan
903:Categories
807:, No.
737:Lamps Plus
725:Lamps Plus
713:Lamps Plus
701:Lamps Plus
674:Lamps Plus
638:Lamps Plus
623:Lamps Plus
477:, No.
462:References
417:Lamps Plus
280:Background
60:Docket no.
430:, and in
229:Sotomayor
87:L. Ed. 2d
70:Citations
856:Text of
829:AT&T
779:333, 348
526:§ 4
510:662, 687
450:See also
383:Dissents
194:Majority
234:Dissent
226:Dissent
218:Dissent
210:Dissent
108:Holding
894:
888:
885:
879:
876:
873:Justia
870:
811:,
809:16-285
770:,
524:
501:,
481:,
479:17-988
221:Breyer
205:Thomas
179:
177:·
175:
167:
165:·
163:
155:
153:·
151:
143:
141:·
139:
64:17-988
864:
815:
774:
505:
485:
308:Facts
100:Prior
866:U.S.
817:U.S.
776:U.S.
507:U.S.
487:U.S.
80:more
75:U.S.
73:587
862:587
841:See
813:584
772:563
698:See
686:See
555:See
503:559
483:587
89:636
905::
662:^
630:^
609:^
589:^
348:,
528:.
425:,
297:.
274:.
83:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.