United States Ninth Circuit

A legal remedies provision in defendant's service agreement is unenforceable as unconscionable under California's consumer protection laws, application of which is not preempted by the Federal Communications Act. The Federal Arbitration Act preempts a California anti-waiver provision as to a class action ban.

Appellate Information

• Argued 10/07/2002
• Decided 02/11/2003
• Published 02/11/2003

Judges

• Before:  TASHIMA, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Michelle R. Van Glederen, Deputy Attorney General (California), Los Angeles, CA, for amicus curiae Attorney General of the State of California;  V. Scott Bailey, Assistant Attorney General (Maryland), Baltimore, MD, for amici curiae States and Commonwealths of Maryland, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin;  Deborah M. Zuckerman, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae American Association of Retired Persons, all urging affirmance., Christopher R. Lipsett, Eric J. Mogilnicki, and Kirk D. Jensen, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC, for amici curiae American Financial Services Association and California Bankers Association, urging reversal.


• For Appellees:
  
• David W. Carpenter, Chicago, IL, for the defendant-appellant., F. Paul Bland, Jr., Washington, DC, James C. Sturdevant, Karen L. Hindin, The Sturdevant Law Firm P.C., San Francisco, California, for the plaintiffs-appellees.