Citing the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument that an arbitration agreement was invalid because it included a prohibition on class or representative actions. The panel also rejected the argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid based on a so-called “blow provision” in the agreement, which mandated that the arbitration agreement be deemed null and void if a court held the prohibition on class or representative actions was invalid. No court had held the class waiver to be invalid, and so the “blow provision” did not operate to invalidate the rest of the agreement. The appellant also sought to argue that arbitration of the parties’ dispute would abridge its “right” to file a third-party complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a). However, because the appellant failed to raise that argument in the trial court, the panel refused to consider it. Krogstad v. Loan Payment Administration LLC, Case No. 17-15964 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2018).
This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.
See our disclaimer.