On behalf of Kazerouni Law Group, APC on Saturday, August 22, 2015.
On August 21, 2015, Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the United States District Court, District of Nevada issued an Order Denying AT&T’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. [A copy of said Order is available here]. As discussed below, the Court held that AT&T’s Business Agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. For those reasons, the Court denied AT&T’s Motion. [Id. at 9:10-11].
Procedurally Unconscionable: First, the Court held that Business Agreement at issue was a contract of adhesion that did not provide any real opportunity to consumers to bargain over its terms. [Id. at 7:17-19]. For this reason, the Business Agreement was held to be “procedurally unconscionable under Nevada law.” [Id. at lines 23-25].
Substantively Unconscionable: Second, Chief Judge Navarro explained that “Nevada possesses a public policy against class action waivers in arbitration agreements…” [Id. at 6:6-8]. Since AT&T’s Business Agreement contained a class action waiver in a contract of adhesion, the Court held this contract to be substantively unconscionable as well. [Id. at 9:3-6].
Since the Business Agreement was both Procedurally and Substantively Unconscionable, the Court held that said Agreement was unenforceable as a matter of law. [Id. at 9:6-8]. Thus, Chief Navarro denied AT&T’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. [Id. at lines 10-11]