Silva v. Mpower Energy, LLC, 1:23-cv-09849

Plaintiffs from New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C. filed two related class actions against Mpower Energy and its NJ subsidiary, alleging deceptive and bad-faith pricing practices inflated customer energy bills.
The plaintiffs brought claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of various consumer protection laws.
Defendants moved to compel individual arbitration of all claims based on an arbitration provision in the service contracts, and requested to stay or dismiss the cases pending arbitration.
Each plaintiff (except Kaur, a third-party beneficiary) signed contracts that included a clear arbitration provision with a class action waiver; all admitted to signing, though some argued they did not read or receive the terms.
The contracts were signed electronically via tablet apps during door-to-door sales, with a follow-up process that included electronic delivery of contract documents, including the arbitration provisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of Arbitration Agreement	Plaintiffs argue they did not see or have notice of Terms and Conditions (including arbitration), so did not agree to arbitrate.	Defendants assert plaintiffs were presented with and signed contracts with arbitration terms, creating a presumption of consent.	The court found plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate by signing contracts and having inquiry notice of terms.
Actual or Inquiry Notice of Arbitration Provision	Plaintiffs claim they lacked actual notice of arbitration terms during the enrollment process.	Defendants argue reasonable people in plaintiffs' position had inquiry notice and opportunity to review all terms, which were conspicuously presented.	The court held plaintiffs had inquiry notice and were bound by the terms, regardless of actual reading.
Scope and Enforceability of Class Action Waiver	Plaintiffs raised no substantive arguments; implicitly challenged as part of overall attack on contract.	Defendants pointed to explicit waiver in contract; under FAA, class waivers are enforceable.	The court enforced the waiver: all arbitrations must be individual, not class actions.
Stay of Proceedings Pending Arbitration	Plaintiffs opposed the stay; requested litigation to proceed.	Defendants requested a full stay of both cases during arbitration.	The court stayed both actions pending resolve of individual arbitrations.

Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411 (FAA policy is to treat arbitration agreements like all other contracts)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tri-Borough NY Med. Prac. P.C., 120 F.4th 59 (two-part test for arbitrability: valid agreement and scope)
Am. Exp. Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228 (arbitration must be enforced according to its terms, including class action waivers)
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable)
Katz v. Cellco P’ship, 794 F.3d 341 (FAA mandates stay when all claims referred to arbitration and stay is requested)
Starke v. SquareTrade Inc., 913 F.3d 279 (inquiry notice of contract terms can bind offeree)