Colin Andrew v. American Import Center and District of Columbia
110 A.3d 626
| D.C. | 2015Background
- Andrew purchased a car from American Import Center (AIC) via a standardized Buyer’s Order that included an arbitration clause; the contract listed Andrew as purchaser though he alleges he intended only to guarantee the loan for a blind friend’s mother.
- The vehicle title was in Andrew’s name, the car was repossessed and sold, and a deficiency was assessed; Andrew sued for fraud, breach, and consumer-protection violations.
- AIC and Wells Fargo moved to compel arbitration under the finance contract; the Superior Court granted the motion and stayed the case without holding an evidentiary hearing on unconscionability.
- Andrew sought discovery and argued the arbitration clause was procedurally and substantively unconscionable as part of a contract of adhesion; he appealed the order compelling arbitration.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals considered (1) whether it had interlocutory jurisdiction to review an order compelling arbitration under D.C. Code § 11‑721(a)(2)(A) in light of the RUAA, and (2) whether Andrew had raised a triable issue of unconscionability requiring an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has interlocutory jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order compelling arbitration under § 11‑721(a)(2)(A) when the arbitration clause is in a consumer adhesion contract | Andrew: Order compelling arbitration in a consumer adhesion context has the practical effect of an injunction and warrants immediate review because consumers suffer serious, perhaps irreparable, harm | AIC/Wells Fargo: Orders compelling arbitration are generally not appealable interlocutorily; RUAA § 16‑4427 cannot expand appellate jurisdiction beyond Home Rule Act limits | Held: Yes — when a consumer is compelled to arbitrate with a commercial entity under an adhesion contract, the Carson test is met and interlocutory appeal under § 11‑721(a)(2)(A) is available |
| Whether the arbitration clause is unconscionable and whether the trial court erred by compelling arbitration without a hearing | Andrew: The contract is a non‑negotiable adhesion form; clause is procedurally and substantively unconscionable (no meaningful choice, one‑sided litigation carve‑outs, class‑action waiver, costs) and requires an evidentiary hearing | AIC/Wells Fargo: Clause valid industry standard; trial court found no triable issue of unconscionability | Held: Andrew raised triable issues of procedural and substantive unconscionability; remand for discovery and an evidentiary hearing and factual findings on unconscionability |
| Whether RUAA § 16‑4427 (allowing appeals from orders granting motions to compel arbitration) impermissibly alters the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction under the Home Rule Act | Andrew: RUAA reflects Council’s consumer‑protection intent and targets adhesion contexts; appeals are consistent with Home Rule limits because injunction‑type orders remain reviewable | AIC/Wells Fargo: RUAA cannot expand appellate jurisdiction beyond statutory limits imposed by Congress | Held: Application of § 16‑4427 to allow interlocutory appeals in the specific adhesion/consumer context does not violate § 1‑206.02(a)(4); court limits holding to that context |
Key Cases Cited
- Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (U.S. 2000) (defines final-order rule for appealability of arbitration stays)
- Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271 (U.S. 1988) (limits interlocutory appeals for stays; preserves review where order has practical effect of injunction)
- Brandon v. Hines, 439 A.2d 496 (D.C. 1981) (discusses appealability of orders staying litigation pending arbitration)
- American Fed'n of Gov't Emps. v. Koczak, 439 A.2d 478 (D.C. 1981) (held orders granting motions to compel arbitration are not final and not appealable under prior UAA)
- Hercules & Co. v. Shama Rest. Corp., 566 A.2d 31 (D.C. 1989) (applied Brandon; generally disallows interlocutory appeals from arbitration stays)
- Keeton v. Wells Fargo Corp., 987 A.2d 1118 (D.C. 2010) (remanded for evidentiary hearing where standardized dealership arbitration clause raised unconscionability issues)
- Lopata v. Coyne, 735 A.2d 931 (D.C. 1999) (notes narrow scope of judicial review of arbitration awards)