Summary
The Sixth Circuit held that whether an arbitration agreement permits classwide arbitration is a gateway question for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably assign it to an arbitrator. Because the agreement did not mention classwide arbitration, the court concluded that it did not authorize class arbitration. The court also rejected the argument that the arbitration clause was unconscionable and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the question whether an arbitration agreement permits classwide arbitration is for the court or the arbitrator to decide.
- Whether the LexisNexis arbitration clause clearly and unmistakably delegated classwide arbitrability to the arbitrator.
- Whether the arbitration agreement authorizes classwide arbitration.
- Whether the arbitration agreement is unconscionable because it does not permit classwide arbitration and makes individual arbitration economically difficult.
Holdings
- Whether an arbitration agreement permits classwide arbitration is a gateway matter reserved for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.
- The LexisNexis arbitration clause did not clearly and unmistakably assign the question of classwide arbitrability to an arbitrator.
- The arbitration agreement does not authorize classwide arbitration.
- The arbitration agreement is not unconscionable merely because it does not permit classwide arbitration and makes individual arbitration economically difficult.
Key quotations
“We therefore hold that the question whether an arbitration agreement permits classwide arbitration is a gateway matter, which is reserved “for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.”” (734 F.3d at 599-600)
“Thus, at best, the agreement is silent or ambiguous as to whether an arbitrator should determine the question of classwide arbitrability; and that is not enough to wrest that decision from the courts.” (734 F.3d at 601)
“The agreement in this case does not provide for classwide arbitration.” (734 F.3d at 602)
Factual background
Craig Crockett and his former law firm subscribed to a LexisNexis legal-research plan containing an arbitration clause. After Crockett alleged that LexisNexis charged additional database-access fees without the promised warnings, he filed an arbitration demand on behalf of himself and two putative classes. The arbitration clause required arbitration in Dayton, Ohio, addressed disputes arising from the subscriber's order, and did not mention classwide arbitration.
Procedural history
Crockett filed an American Arbitration Association demand asserting state-law claims on behalf of himself and two putative classes. Reed Elsevier filed an action in the Southern District of Ohio seeking a declaration regarding the scope of the arbitration clause and an injunction. The district court granted Reed Elsevier summary judgment on the declaratory claim, dismissed the injunctive claim without prejudice, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.