675 F. App'x 563
6th Cir.2017Background
- Stevens-Bratton contracted with TruGreen for lawn services from May 15, 2013 to May 15, 2014; the written agreement included a broad mandatory arbitration clause and a contact provision authorizing TruGreen to call her cell using an ATDS about current and possible future services.
- Stevens-Bratton registered her cell number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on November 9, 2013 and, beginning January 27, 2015, received multiple automated telemarketing calls from TruGreen after the contract had been terminated.
- She sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), sought class certification, and TruGreen moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss.
- The district court compelled arbitration and denied class certification, dismissing Stevens-Bratton’s claims.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding the TCPA dispute did not “arise under” the expired agreement and remanded for further proceedings (vacating the denial of class certification).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the arbitration clause apply to TCPA calls made after the agreement expired? | Calls occurred after expiration, so dispute does not arise under the contract. | The contact provision and plaintiff’s prior consent created rights and expectations giving post‑expiration effect to arbitration. | Reversed: dispute did not arise under the expired agreement; arbitration not compelled. |
| Did the right to call vest or accrue under the contract such that post‑expiration calls infringe a vested right? | Right to call is revocable and does not accrue or vest over time. | The agreement granted TruGreen the right to call about future services, so that right vested during the agreement. | Held for plaintiff: right to call does not vest in the manner that accrues over time; no vested right was infringed. |
| Under ordinary contract interpretation, does the contact provision survive expiration? | Provision is ambiguous and should be construed against the drafter to avoid an interpretation allowing indefinite post‑expiration calls. | Provision allows contacting for "possible future services," implying continued effect. | Held for plaintiff: ambiguity resolved against TruGreen; the right does not survive expiration. |
| Is the arbitration clause unconscionably broad? | Clause is overbroad as it covers "any claim, dispute or controversy." | Clause is a common, enforceable broad arbitration provision. | Held for defendant on this point: clause not unconscionable. |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (federal policy favors arbitration)
- Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) (post‑expiration arbitration applies only when dispute’s real source is the expired contract)
- Huffman v. Hilltop Cos., LLC, 747 F.3d 391 (6th Cir. 2014) (treats presumption of arbitrability in expired agreements and survival clauses)
- South Cent. Power Co. v. Int’l Broth. of Elec. Workers, Local Union 2359, 186 F.3d 733 (6th Cir. 1999) (majority of material facts must predate expiration for dispute to arise under contract)
- Fazio v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 340 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2003) (scope inquiry: whether action can be maintained without reference to the contract)