Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Craig Crockett
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22408
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Crockett signed an adhesion LexisNexis subscription agreement containing an arbitration clause.
- The clause requires arbitration of disputes arising from the order under AAA rules, but is silent on class arbitration.
- Crockett filed an arbitration demand on his behalf and for two putative classes seeking over $500 million in damages.
- LexisNexis sued in Ohio federal court seeking a declaration that the clause does not authorize class arbitration and an injunction against classwide arbitration.
- The district court granted summary judgment for LexisNexis, ruling the clause does not authorize classwide arbitration.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit considers whether classwide arbitrability is a gateway or subsidiary question and whether the clause permits class arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who decides classwide arbitrability? | Crockett argues arbitrator should decide. | LexisNexis argues court should decide. | Court, not arbitrator, decides. |
| Does the clause authorize classwide arbitration? | Clause is silent; could permit class arbitration. | Clause is explicit about bilateral arbitration only. | Clause does not authorize classwide arbitration. |
| Is the clause unconscionable if read to prohibit classwide arbitration? | One-sided, adhesive, economically unfeasible for individuals. | Absence of classwide right does not render agreement unconscionable. | Not unconscionable under controlling case law. |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 F.3d 643 (U.S. 1986) (arbitration authority relies on party agreement; gateway vs subsidiary disputes framework)
- Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (U.S. 2003) (arbitrability questions and class arbitration context)
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 792 (U.S. 2002) (gateway questions generally for judicial determination)
- Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2010) (class arbitration availability not presumed; fundamental differences)
- Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064 (U.S. 2013) (addressed class arbitration gateway question; plurality commentary)