Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum
210 Cal. App. 4th 851
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- This is a long-running class action against Sprint over ETF penalties under CLRA, UCL, and related claims.
- The court certified a class of ETF payers and allowed Sprint to cross-claim for damages with a potential setoff.
- A jury determined ETFs paid and Sprint’s damages, with the court applying a setoff that netted to zero for Sprint.
- The trial court entered a December 24, 2008 judgment on liability and restitution, plus a partial new trial on damages and setoff.
- This Court affirmed the judgment and remanded for retrial on Sprint’s damages and the offset calculation.
- After remittitur, Sprint moved to compel arbitration of the named plaintiffs’ claims, arguing Concepcion required arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand limited retrial to damages and setoff, barring arbitration | Sprint argues retrial broadens scope, reopens arbitrability | Ayyad contends remittitur limits remand to damages/setoff | Yes; arbitration denied within remand scope |
| Whether the trial court could entertain pretrial arbitration motion on remand | Sprint asserts reacquired jurisdiction allows arbitration proceedings | Remand directions did not authorize arbitration | No; jurisdiction limited to retrial of damages and setoff |
Key Cases Cited
- Griset v. Fair Political Practices Comm., 25 Cal.4th 688 (Cal. 2001) (remittitur defines trial court's jurisdiction on remand)
- Dutra v. Dutra, 145 Cal.App.4th 1359 (Cal. App. 4th 2006) (remand directions bind trial court; improper to exceed scope)
- Bach v. County of Butte, 215 Cal.App.3d 294 (Cal. App. 3d 1989) (remand directions govern remand proceedings)
- Hanna v. City of Los Angeles, 212 Cal.App.3d 363 (Cal. App. 3d 1989) (remand scope limits what can be decided on remand)
- Butler v. Superior Court, 104 Cal.App.4th 979 (Cal. App. 4th 2002) (trial court cannot expand remand beyond directions)
- Rice v. Schmid, 25 Cal.2d 259 (Cal. 1944) (affirmance/res judicata implications on retrial scope)
- Puritan Leasing Co. v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.3d 140 (Cal. App. 3d 1977) (prior decision conclusively determines issues left on remand)
- Skaggs v. City of Los Angeles, 138 Cal.App.2d 269 (Cal. App. 2d 1956) (remand directions binding; cannot relitigate issues outside scope)
- Hilton v. McNitt, 200 Cal.App.2d 879 (Cal. App. 2d 1962) (distinguish flat reversal vs. remand with directions)
- MHC Financing Limited Partnership Two v. City of Santee, 182 Cal.App.4th 1169 (Cal. App. 4th 2010) (remand scope governs forecast of remand proceedings)