|
state consumer protection laws), on appeal to Sixth Circuit; |
| Ramirez v. Circuit City Stores, 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 916 (Cal. Ct. |
| App. 1999) (finding arbitration clause in contract of employment |
| voided as unconscionable, in part, because it would deprive |
| arbitrator of authority to hear classwide claim), review granted |
| and opinion superseded, 995 P.2d 137 (Cal. 2000); Powertel v. |
| Bexley, 743 So. 2d 570 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999) (refusing to enforce |
| arbitration clause as unconscionable in part because of its |
| retroactive application to preexisting lawsuit and because one |
| factor as to its substantive unconscionability was that it |
| precluded the possibility of classwide relief); Jean R. |
| Sternlight, As Mandatory Arbitration Meets the Class Action, |
| Will the Class Action Survive?, 42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1 |
| (October, 2000); but cf. Johnson v. West Suburban Bank, 225 F.3d |
| 366, (3rd Cir. 2000) (holding that neither the text nor the |
| legislative history of TILA or the Electronic Funds Transfer Act |
| ("EFTA") indicate an inherent conflict between TILA or EFTA and |
| the right to arbitrate even though plaintiffs cannot proceed |
| under the class action provisions of these statutes); Thompson |
| v. Illinois Title Loans, Inc., 2000 WL 45493 (N.D., Jan. 11, |
| 2000) (same as to TILA claim); Sagal v. First USA Bank, N.A., 69 |
| F.Supp. 2d 627 (D. Del. 1999) (same), on appeal to Third |
| Circuit; Zawikowski v. Beneficial Nat'l Bank, 1999 WL 35304 |
| (N.D. Ill., Jan. 11, 1999) (same); Randolph v. Green Tree Fin. |
| Corp., 991 F.Supp. 1410 (M.D. Ala. 1997), rev'd on other |
| grounds, 178 F.2d 1149 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. granted, 120 |
| S.Ct. 1552 (2000) (same); Lopez v. Plaza Fin. Co., 1996 WL |
| 210073 (N.D. Ill. April 25, 1996) (same); Brown v. Surety |
| Finance Service, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5734 (N.D. Ill. |
| Mar. 23, 2000) (same); Meyers v. Univest Home Loan, Inc., 1993 |
| WL 307747 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 1993) (holding that claims of |
| named-plaintiff asserted in class action under TILA and state |
| consumer protection act must be arbitrated); Howard v. Klynveld |
| Peat Marwick Goerderler, 977 F.Supp. 654, 665, n.7 (S.D.N.Y. |
| 1997) ("A plaintiff *** who has agreed to arbitrate all claims |
| arising out of her employment may not avoid arbitration by |
| pursuing class claims. Such claims must be pursued in non-class |
| arbitration."); Doctor's Assoc., Inc. v. Hollingsworth, 949 |
| F.Supp. 77, 80-81 (D. Conn. 1996) (holding that class action |
| contract claims brought by franchisees were subject to |
| arbitration provision of franchising agreement requiring |
| individual arbitrations); Erickson v. Painewebber, Inc., 1990 WL |
| 104152 (N.D. Ill., July 13, 1990) (holding that fraud claims of |
| named-plaintiff asserted in class action must be arbitrated). |
