C536A104d01 - Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT CRAIG COMB and ROBERTA...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 of 1 DOCUMENT CRAIG COMB and ROBERTA TOHER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public of the United States, Plaintiffs, v. PAYPAL, INC., Defendant. JEFFREY RESNICK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public of the United States, Plaintiffs, v. PAYPAL, INC., Defendant. Case Number C-02-1227 JF (PVT), C-02-2777 JF (PVT), [Docket No. 23, 5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 218 F. Supp. 2d 1165 ; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16364 August 30, 2002, Decided DISPOSITION: [**1] Motions to compel individual arbitration DENIED. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, consumers, sought injunctive relief and related remedies on behalf of a purported nationwide class for alleged violations of state and federal law by defendant internet transaction-payment service. The service moved to compel individual arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in its standard user agreement and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C.S. § 1 et seq. OVERVIEW: One of the consumer's claims were not subject to arbitration because he had not entered a user agreement with the service. Other consumers argued that even if they did enter into the user agreement, the contract and in particular its arbitration clause were unconscionable. The court held that it satisfied the criteria for procedural unconscionability under California law, since the average transaction was $ 55.00, most customers were unsophisticated private individuals, and there was at least a factual dispute whether competitors' services required customers to enter into arbitration agreements. The court questioned the agreement's mutuality, the practical effects of the arbitration clause with respect to consolidation of claims, the costs of arbitration, and venue. The service unilaterally froze customer accounts and retained funds that it alone determined were subject to dispute without notice, under the agreement. The arbitration clause expressly prohibited consolidating claims. The service seemed to try to insulate itself contractually from any meaningful challenge to its alleged practices. The court held the arbitration clause was also substantively unconscionable. OUTCOME: The motions to compel individual arbitration were denied. CORE TERMS: user, arbitration, customer's, arbitration clause, unconscionability, e-mail, unconscionable, consumer, supplemental, electronic, arbitration agreements, binding, notice, declaration, opened, forum selection clauses, substantively, arbitrate, quotation, mutuality, telephone number, recipient, state laws, agreements to arbitrate, credit card, sole discretion, prior notice, enforceable, adhesion, website Page 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes Civil Procedure > Alternative Dispute Resolution > Arbitrations > General Overview International Trade Law > General Overview
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 14

C536A104d01 - Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT CRAIG COMB and ROBERTA...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online