Posts tagged "1010313"

Feeney, et al. v. Dell Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-103-13)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030;     SJC‑11133    JOHN A. FEENEY & another[1]  vs.  DELL INC.[2] & others.[3] Middlesex.     December 4, 2012.  ‑  June 12, 2013. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.   Consumer Protection Act, Class action, Arbitration.  Public Policy.  Contract, Arbitration.  Arbitration, Waiver.  Federal Preemption.  Practice, Civil, Class action.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 10, 2003.   A motion to confirm an arbitration award, filed on July 18, 2011, was heard by Douglas H. Wilkins, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     John A. Shope (Eric A. Haskell with him) for the defendants. Edward D. Rapacki for the plaintiffs. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Scott L. Nelson, of the District of Columbia, & Matthew W.H. Wessler for Public Justice, P.C., & another.   Robin S. Conrad, Kate Comerford Todd, & Shane B. Kawka, of the District of Columbia, Alan E. Schoenfeld, of New York, & Mark C. Fleming for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. Deborah J. La Fetra, of California, & Donald R. Pinto, Jr., for Pacific Legal Foundation. Ben Robbins & Martin J. Newhouse for New England Legal Foundation.     CORDY, J.  We decide in this case whether a class action waiver provision in an arbitration clause in a consumer contract is enforceable where the plaintiff can demonstrate, as a factual matter, that the class action waiver effectively denies him or her a remedy and insulates the defendant from private civil liability for violations of State law.  In doing so, we must consider the extent to which the United States Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) (Concepcion), abrogates our earlier decision in this case, Feeney v. Dell Inc., 454 Mass. 192 (2009) (Feeney I), which invalidated the same class action waiver after concluding that the requirement of individual arbitration was “contrary to the fundamental public policy of the Commonwealth favoring consumer class actions under [the Massachusetts consumer protection statute,] G. L. c. 93A.”  Id. at 193.   In Concepcion, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (2006), “prohibits States from conditioning the enforceability of certain arbitration agreements on the availability of classwide arbitration procedures.”  Concepcion, supra at 1744.  In […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 13, 2013 at 3:00 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,