Robinson v. Title Lenders, Inc.
2012 Mo. LEXIS 63
| Mo. | 2012Background
- Borrower signed 13 payday loan contracts with Title Lenders ( Sept 2005–Sept 2006) each containing arbitration language including a class waiver.
- Arbitration clause stated the arbitrator could award court-like remedies but prohibited class arbitration; Borrower did not read the clause.
- Borrower sued Title Lenders alleging MMPA and regulatory violations; sought class treatment.
- Trial court found the arbitration agreement unconscionable due to the class waiver and stayed proceedings pending arbitration; struck the class waiver.
- Title Lenders appealed, arguing Concepcion requires enforcing the arbitration agreement; staggered proceedings included pre-Concepcion Brewer I precedents, later superseded by Concepcion.
- Post-Stolt-Nielsen and Concepcion developments led to remand to assess ordinary state-law contract defenses without biased focus on the class waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the class waiver renders the arbitration agreement unconscionable. | Robinson argues the class waiver deprives a meaningful remedy and is unconscionable. | Title Lenders argues the waiver is enforceable and not unconscionable under Concepcion. | Reversed; trial court erred by focusing only on the class waiver; remanded for full Concepcion-based analysis. |
| Whether Concepcion requires enforcing the arbitration agreement despite unconscionability findings limited to the class waiver. | Robinson contends Concepcion precludes invalidating the entire agreement solely for the class waiver. | Title Lenders contends Concepcion supports enforcing the agreement. | Concepcion directs evaluating enforceability under generally applicable contract defenses, not invalidating for the class waiver alone. |
| Whether FAA saving clause permits state unconscionability defenses to invalidate the agreement. | Robinson urges traditional Missouri unconscionability defenses apply. | Title Lenders argues FAA preempts state rules that single out arbitration. | Concepcion permits use of generally applicable defenses, not state rules that hamper arbitration; not conclusive on enforceability yet. |
| What is the proper remedy after Concepcion—strike the waiver or the entire agreement? | If unconscionable, class waiver should be invalidated to allow relief. | Arbitration agreement should be enforced under Concepcion, possibly with tailored remedies. | Remand to determine enforceability of the underlying agreement under Concepcion rather than outright invalidation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brewer v. Mo. Title Loans, Inc., 323 S.W.3d 18 (Mo. banc 2010) (arbitration class waiver unconscionable; class arbitration unnecessary when FAA preempts)
- Concepcion v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) (FAA preempts Discover Bank rule; assess enforceability under generally applicable contract defenses)
- Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int'l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010) (class arbitration requires express consent; silent on class arbitration cannot compel)
- Cruz v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 648 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2011) (post-Concepcion, state unconscionability rules cannot create arbitration obstacles)
- Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, 132 S. Ct. 1201 (2012) (post-Concepcion remand on public policy considerations not specific to arbitration)
- Litman v. Cellco P'ship, 655 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2011) (FAA preemption of state rules forcing class arbitration)