Cluster 2576355

Ting, 182 F.Supp.2d at 932 (“if consumers obtain determinations that a particular ... practice is unlawful, they are prohibited from alerting other consumers”).

K, at 4); 203 Cal. App. 4th 771, 803 (2012) 16 (arbitration clause which “required the arbitrators to ‘make their award in accordance 17 with and based upon all provisions of this Agreement,’ thereby incorporate[ed] the 18 unlawful attorney fees provision.”); Ting v. AT & T, 182 F. Supp. 2d 902, 926 (N.D.

Opp’n at 34 (quoting Ting v. AT&T, 182 F. Supp. 2d 902, 906 (N.D.

The argument in favor of unconscionability relies on the proposition that significant benefits in arbitrations flow to “repeat players.” See Ting v. AT&T, 182 F Supp 2d 902, 932 (ND Cal 2002), quoting Llewellyn Joseph Gibbons, Private Law, Public “Justice”: Another Look at Privacy, Arbitration, and Global E-Commerce, Ohio St J on Disp Resol 769, 786-87 (2000) (so concluding based on empirical data).

Thus, the prohibition on class action litigation functions as an effective deterrent to litigating many types of claims involving rates, services or billing practices and, ultimately, would serve to shield AT & T from liability even in cases where it has violated the law. 175 Ting v. AT & T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 918 (N.D.Cal.2002). 176 The parallels between the effect of the class action ban in Ting and the class mechanism bar in the Policies & Practices is impossible to ignor…

Ting v. AT & T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 918 (N.D.Cal.2002).

Dunlap v. Berger, 211 W.Va. 549 , 567 S.E.2d 265 (2002); and Ting v. AT & T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 938-39 (N.D.Cal.2002). 9 .

Citing to Ting v. AT&T, 182 F. Supp. 2d 902, 934 (N.D.

Thus, the United States Supreme Court's analysis in Green Tree Financial Corp. is particularly relevant here. [6] Citing to Ting v. AT & T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 934 (N.D.Cal.2002), aff'd, 319 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 811 , 124 S.Ct. 53 , 157 L.Ed.2d 24 (2003), where the court found that the average daily rate of compensation for an arbitration in Northern California was $1,899, Zuver requests that we take judicial notice of the fact that arbitration costs i…

Ting v. AT & T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 928 (N.D.Cal.2002), aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 319 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 53 , 157 L.Ed.2d 24 (2003).

Finally, we conclude that the cost of arbitration is actually a matter of substantive, not procedural, unconscionability, see Ting v. AT & T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 903 (N.D.Cal.2002), rev'd in part by, 319 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir.2003), although some courts have considered this a separate defense from unconscionability.

Cf. Ting v. AT&T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 933 (N.D.Cal.2002) (using substantive unconscionability) with Camacho v. Holiday Homes, Inc., 167 F.Supp.2d 892 (W.D.Va.2001) (viewing the defense as one standing alone and apart from unconscionability analysis).

Neither you nor AT&T may disclose the existence, content or results of any arbitration or award, except as may he required by law or to confirm and enforce an award.’ ” Ting v. AT&T, 182 F. Supp. 2d 902, 931 (N.D.

Dunlap v. Berger, 211 W.Va. 549 , 567 S.E.2d 265 (2002); and Ting v. AT & T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 938-39 (N.D.Cal.2002) ("This lawsuit is not about arbitration.... [Under the guise of requiring arbitration, the company] was actually rewriting substantially the legal landscape on which its customers must contend.... [The company] sought to shield itself from liability ... by imposing Legal Remedies Provisions that eliminate class actions, sharply curtail damages in cases of mis…

Ting v. AT & T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 935 (N.D.Cal.2002); Lelouis, 230 F.Supp.2d at 1225 .

The Magistrate Judge concluded that defendant is similar to the defendant in Ting v. AT & T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 931 (N.D.Cal.2002), because defendant stands in a “vastly superior legal posture” and fails to give a rationale for the confidentiality provision.

Ting v. AT & T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 909 (N.D.Cal.2002) (quoting FCC web page).

Conclusion We conclude with a quotation from Ting v. AT & T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 938-939 (N.D.Cal.2002), which is applicable to the instant ease: This lawsuit is not about arbitration 17 ... [Under the guise of requiring arbitration, the company] was actually rewriting substantially the legal landscape on which its customers must contend ... [the company] sought to shield itself from liability ... by imposing Legal Remedies Provisions that eliminate class actions, sharply cur…

See Green Tree, 531 U.S. at 90 n. 6, 121 S.Ct. 513 (noting average AAA arbitrator's fee in 1996 of approximately $700 per day); Ting, 182 F.Supp.2d at 934 (noting $1,899 average daily arbitrator compensation in Northern California); Phillips v. Assocs.

See Green Tree, 531 U.S. at 90 n.6 (noting average AAA arbitrator’s fee in 1996 of approximately $700 per day); Ting, 182 F. Supp. 2d at 934 (noting $1,899 average daily arbitrator compensation in Northern California); Phillips, 179 F. Supp. 2d at 846 (ranging from $750 to $5,000, with an average of $1,800 per day for a single arbitrator in the Chicago area); Camacho, 167 F. Supp. 2d at 897 (ranging $600 for one-half the cost of cheapest available arbitrator for 12 hours to …

See Ting v. AT & T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 933 (N.D.Ca.2002) (holding that, “[w]hereas this clause may be illegal as applied to plaintiffs’ statutory rights under the CLRA, it is not substantively unconscionable when applied to non-statutory claims.”), ajfd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 319 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 811 , 124 S.Ct. 53 , 157 L.Ed.2d 24 (2003); see also Hoover, 206 S.W.3d at 563 (provision in attorney-client contract held subst…

See Ting v. AT&T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902 (N.D.Cal.2002).

See Ting v. AT&T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902 (N.D.Cal.2002).

See Ting v. AT & T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 933 (N.D.Cal.2002) (substantive unconscionability); In re FirstMerit Bank, 52 S.W.3d [749] at 756 [Tex.2001] (unconscionability).

Compare Ting v. AT & T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 933 (N.D.Cal.2002) (using substantive unconscionability) with Camacho v. Holiday Homes, Inc., 167 F.Supp.2d 892 (W.D.Va.2001) (viewing the defense as one standing alone and apart from unconsciona-bility analysis).

The court held that when such an arbitration agreement is silent on costs, it would infer from that silence the existence of an agreement on the part of the employer to bear the arbitration forum costs. ( Id. at p. 113, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 , 6 P.3d 669 ; see also Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1064, 1082 , 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 892 , 63 P.3d 979 .) In Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc ., the California Supreme Court confirmed that "Armendariz represents the soundest app…

See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 208 & cmt. g; see also Ting v. AT & T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 935 (N.D.Cal.2002) (“If the illegality is collateral to the main purpose of the contract, and the illegal provision can be extirpated from the contract by means of severance or restriction, then such severance and restriction are appropriate.”).

See Acorn, 211 F.Supp.2d at 1170-71 (finding Arbitration Rider unconscionable under California law due to class action prohibition); see also Ting v. AT & T, 182 F.Supp.2d 902, 931 (N.D.Cal.2002) (discussed with approval in Mendez, 111 Wash.App. at 464 , 45 P.3d 594 ) (class action prohibition rendered arbitration provision unconscionable); Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., 91 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1105 (W.D.Mich.2000) (same); State ex rel.