Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 JANUARY 2020

"Class Arbitration": Second Circuit Declines To Pull The Plug On Mechanism That SCOTUS Largely Scorns

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Explore more from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

"Class arbitration" signifies the utilization of the Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 protocol in an arbitration proceeding. A fundamental question among many concerning the legal viability of "class arbitration"

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

"Class arbitration" signifies the utilization of the Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 protocol in an arbitration proceeding. A fundamental question among many concerning the legal viability of "class arbitration" is whether an arbitrator can issue an award that binds a person who is not a party to or otherwise deemed by law bound by the bilateral arbitration agreement upon which the arbitral proceeding and the arbitrator's authority are founded -- e.g., a non-appearing non-party putative class member. SCOTUS has signaled, but not held, that that is a dubious proposition. The Second Circuit recently identified circumstances in which, it opined, the courts may not vacate an arbitral award permitting "class arbitration," and that award may bind all putative members of a class, including non-appearing non-parties to the controlling arbitration agreement. See Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34205 (2d Cir. Nov. 18, 2019) ("Jock"). That decision is open to criticism.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from