Maxine Aarons Givens v. Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company
674 F.3d 1252
11th Cir.2012Background
- Given filed a putative class action against M&T Bank alleging improper overdraft fees on checking accounts.
- Arbitration agreement in Given's contract provides that any issue about whether a dispute is subject to arbitration will be decided by the arbitrator and includes a dollar-amount relief condition.
- District court denied M&T Bank’s renewed motion to compel arbitration, finding the scope of claims not within the arbitration agreement.
- M&T Bank appealed; the case was transferred to the Southern District of Florida and consolidated for pretrial purposes.
- Supreme Court decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion prompted reconsideration; court vacated prior denial and remanded.
- On remand, the district court again denied arbitration without addressing unconscionability; M&T Bank appeals again, arguing for arbitrator resolution on scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who decides scope of arbitration? | Given | M&T Bank | Delegation -> arbitrator decides scope |
| Is the delegation provision clear and enforceable? | Ambiguity due to relief-dollar sentence | Clear delegation of gateway question | Delegation clear and enforceable; district court erred in deciding scope |
| Is the arbitration agreement unconscionable overall? | Agreement unconscionable under Maryland law | Not addressed here; Concepcion guidance suggests reconsideration | Court declines ruling on unconscionability; remand for that to be reconsidered |
Key Cases Cited
- Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772 (2010) (delegation provision is valid and gateway question may be arbitrated)
- First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (clear and unmistakable evidence of intent to arbitrate gateway questions)
- CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665 (2012) (FAA requires enforcement of delegation as to gateway questions)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) (preemption of state-law unconscionability defenses in consumer arbitration)
- Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010) (interpretation of arbitration agreements governed by FAA; arbitration of gateway questions)