State Ex Rel. AT & T Mobility, LLC v. Wilson
226 W. Va. 572
| W. Va. | 2010Background
- In Feb 2003 Shorts bought cell service from AT&T Wireless; service terminated May 6, 2003; imposed a $150 early termination fee.
- AT&T Wireless later sold Shorts' debt to Palisades Collections; Palisades sued Shorts in Brooke County Magistrate Court; Shorts counterclaimed under the CCPA.
- Case was removed to circuit court, then remanded; Shorts added class action claims to the counterclaim.
- AT&T Mobility moved to compel arbitration, urging the 2003 service agreement; argued that 2005 Cingular terms plus 2006 and 2009 modifications govern arbitration.
- Trial court held the 2005 agreement and later modifications control and found the arbitration provisions unconscionable under Dunlap due to class-action ban.
- This Court granted a writ of prohibition, limiting review to whether absence of class-wide arbitration renders the contract unconscionable per se; held Dunlap does not mandate per se unconscionability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is absence of class arbitration per se unconscionable? | AT&T contends Dunlap does not require per se unconscionability for no-class arbitration. | Shorts argues Dunlap bars any arbitration with class-action waiver as unconscionable. | No per se rule; unconscionability must be case-specific. |
| How should unconscionability be analyzed for adhesions contracts? | AT&T supports Art's Flower Shop four-part test plus Dunlap standards. | Shorts argues Dunlap's criteria render the clause unconscionable. | Apply case-by-case review using Art's Flower Shop framework and Dunlap additions. |
| Which arbitration provisions govern the dispute and are enforceable? | AT&T contends 2003 agreement governs; 2005/2006/2009 terms govern procedural aspects. | Shorts maintains the controlling provisions are those from 2005 with subsequent consumer-friendly updates. | Writ requires court to identify controlling provisions and reassess unconscionability with proper findings. |
| Do the costs and lack of class relief render the arbitration unconscionable given the record? | AT&T argues costs are not prohibitive and remedies are available; class relief is not indispensable. | Shorts argues the arrangement is unfair and burdensome without class relief. | Dependent on proper findings; court must evaluate costs and remedy availability in light of Art's Flower Shop and Dunlap. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Saylor v. Wilkes, 216 W.Va. 766 (2005) (establishes writs of prohibition for arbitration when lower court exceeds powers; five-factor test)
- State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W.Va. 12 (1996) (five-factor framework for prohibition; emphasizes clear legal error)
- Art's Flower Shop, Inc. v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co., 186 W.Va. 613 (1991) (four-part unconscionability test for adhesion contracts)
- Dunlap v. Berger, 211 W.Va. 549 (2002) (expanded unconscionability analysis; class-action waiver not per se)
- Clites v. Clawges, 224 W.Va. 299 (2009) (adhesion contracts may be enforceable; evaluate total contract fairness)
- Wince v. Easterbrooke Cellular Corp., 681 F. Supp. 2d 679 (2010) (federal district court recognized incentives to bring claims affect unconscionability)
- Schultz v. AT&T Wireless Svs., Inc., 376 F. Supp. 2d 685 (2005) (Fourth Circuit treatment of class-action waiver in arbitration)
- Tillman v. Commercial Credit Loans, Inc., 655 S.E.2d 362 (2008) (addresses unconscionability of class-action waivers and arbitration costs)