DIRECTV, Inc. v. Murray
2012 Ark. 366
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Murray filed a putative class action against DIRECTV and Pro Sat for deceptive collection of an early cancellation fee under the ADTPA.
- DIRECTV moved to dismiss or stay and to compel Murray to arbitrate based on a customer agreement said to include an arbitration provision.
- Court held a hearing on arbitration and class certification, denying arbitration and granting class certification; both orders were appealed.
- Arbitration issues focused on whether Murray received, understood, and assented to the arbitration provision; DIRECTV’s proof was challenged and the court did an independent assessment of assent.
- The court affirmed the arbitration denial, ruling Murray did not assent; it then affirmed class certification under Rule 23, finding common questions predominate and the class is cohesive for the ADTPA claim.
- A concur/dissent addressed whether Murray could be a proper class representative given potential arbitration obligations of others and jurisdictional thresholds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arbitration enforceability against Murray | Murray assented to arbitration via the customer agreement mailed with her first billing statement | DIRECTV proved Murray received and assented; arbitration should be enforced | Arbitration not enforced; Murray did not assent by continued use after a short lapse |
| Mutuality of obligation | Arbitration clause mutuality not required for ADTPA claim to proceed | Mutuality required; otherwise arbitration agreement invalid | Court declined to address mutuality as there was no arbitration clause binding the class |
| Typicality and predominance (class certification) | Murray’s claim arises from the same wrongful conduct as the class’s ADTPA claims | Murray’s Pro Sat experience and nonparty issues undermine typicality/predominance | Typicality and predominance satisfied for certification |
| Numerosity | Large class of Arkansas residents charged early cancellation fees | Class size unclear; arbitration could affect numerosity | Not addressed on appeal; waiver issues deferred at class-certification stage |
| Superiority | Class settlement is superior to individual actions | Attorney General settlement questions potential conflict; no ruling on it | Superiority affirmed; no findings on AG settlement necessary at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Sumner v. Alltel Corp., 360 Ark. 573 (2005) (standard for assent to arbitration and communication of terms)
- Barker v. Golf U.S.A., Inc., 154 F.3d 788 (8th Cir. 1998) (state contract defenses apply to arbitration agreements)
- Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 (1987) (contract formation concerns and mutual assent)
- Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995) (arbitration contract defenses limited to general contract defenses)
- Doctor’s Assocs. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681 (1996) (court may apply general contract defenses to arbitration)
- Independence Cnty. v. City of Clarksville, 2012 Ark. 17 (2012) (arbitration as contract matter analyzed under general contract law)
- Williamson v. Sanofi Winthrop Pharm., Inc., 347 Ark. 89 (2001) (meeting of the minds required for contract formation)
- Van Camp v. Van Camp, 333 Ark. 320 (1998) (objective indicators of assent in contract formation)
- Rosenow v. Alltel Corp., 2010 Ark. 26 (2010) (class-certification standards for predominance and common questions)
- ChartOne, Inc. v. Raglon, 373 Ark. 275 (2008) (predominance with common questions in ADTPA fee cases)
- The Money Place, LLC v. Barnes, 349 Ark. 518 (2002) (predominance and common questions support class where liability is common)
- Vickers, 2009 Ark. 259 (2009) (predominance concerns with individualized issues)
- Zearley v. Arthur, 320 Ark. 273 (1995) (informed consent issues raising individualized questions)
- USA Check Cashers of Little Rock, Inc. v. Island, 349 Ark. 71 (2002) (waiver/arbitration issues not determinative at certification)