Johnson v. Consumerinfo.com, Inc.
745 F.3d 1019
9th Cir.2014Background
- Five plaintiffs purchased ConsumerInfo.com’s "Triple Advantage" credit-monitoring program, whose Terms and Conditions included an arbitration clause.
- Each plaintiff filed a putative class action in the Central District of California alleging violations of California consumer-protection laws.
- ConsumerInfo moved to compel arbitration in each case; the district court found the arbitration agreements valid and that issues of fraud in inducement belonged to an arbitrator.
- The district court stayed the actions and compelled individual arbitration, and denied certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Plaintiffs timely appealed.
- Central legal question: whether 9 U.S.C. § 16 bars immediate appeals from interlocutory orders that stay proceedings and compel arbitration, or whether such orders can be appealed as "final" under the collateral order doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 16(b) bars immediate appeal of an order staying proceedings and compelling arbitration | The order is "final" under the collateral order doctrine, so § 16(b) (which bars interlocutory appeals) does not apply | § 16(b) was meant to remove appellate jurisdiction over such orders; only § 1292(b) permits immediate appeal | Held: § 16(b) bars the appeal; collateral-order doctrine cannot circumvent § 16(b) |
| Whether § 16(b) is ambiguous such that legislative history allows collateral-order appeals | Plaintiffs contend § 16(b) does not clearly preclude collateral-order appeals | Congress’s text, structure, and history show it intended to preclude interlocutory appeals of the orders listed in § 16(b) | Held: Statute is clear; legislative history confirms Congress intended to prohibit immediate appeals except via § 1292(b) |
| Whether prior routes to immediate appeal (finality/collateral order) survive § 16 | Plaintiffs argue collateral-order doctrine and § 1291 still permit immediate appeal | Defendant (and Court) argue § 16 supersedes other avenues except § 1292(b) certification | Held: § 16 supersedes other appellate routes; only § 1292(b) provides immediate appeal path |
| Whether mandamus relief is available as an alternative to appeal | Plaintiffs sought mandamus to review the arbitration order | Mandamus is extraordinary and requires clear legal error; § 16(b) does not foreclose mandamus but relief is discretionary | Held: Mandamus denied because district court did not commit clear legal error |
Key Cases Cited
- Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (U.S. 2000) (distinguishing appealability of dismissals from stays when arbitration is compelled)
- Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1994) (describing collateral order doctrine as practical construction of final-decision rule)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1949) (formative articulation of collateral order doctrine)
- Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152 (U.S. 1990) (statutory interpretation principles: read text with statute’s design and purpose)
- Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2007) (general rule that interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable)
- MediVas, LLC v. Marubeni Corp., 741 F.3d 4 (9th Cir. 2014) (order compelling arbitration appealable only if district court dismisses claims; not appealable if stayed)
- Moglia v. Pac. Emp’rs Ins. Co., 547 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding § 16 supersedes other appellate routes for arbitration orders)
- ConArt, Inc. v. Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc., 504 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2007) (refusing to allow collateral-order doctrine to circumvent § 16(b))
- ATAC Corp. v. Arthur Treacher’s, Inc., 280 F.3d 1091 (6th Cir. 2002) (Congress’s arbitration-specific statute supersedes collateral-order doctrine)
- Filanto, S.P.A. v. Chilewich Int’l Corp., 984 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1993) (bar to appeal of orders compelling arbitration cannot be circumvented by collateral-order doctrine)