class action waiver in Washington

2018Comcast Corp. v. Behrend , 569 U.S. 27 , 33, 133 S.Ct. 1426 , 185 L.Ed. 2d 515 (2013).

2018Comcast Corp. v. Behrend , 569 U.S. 27 , 33, 133 S.Ct. 1426 , 185 L.Ed. 2d 515 (2013).

2008For example, Judge Gould, writing for the Ninth Circuit, recently applied Scott to invalidate a class action waiver in Lowden v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 512 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2008).

2008For example, Judge Gould, writing for the Ninth Circuit, recently applied Scott to invalidate a class action waiver in Lowden v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 512 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir.2008).

2007In rejecting a claim that the bar on class proceedings in an arbitration agreement had the effect of immunizing the company from low-value claims, the Fifth Circuit pointed out that it "must take into account that both federal and [the relevant state] policy favor arbitration as a method of dispute resolution" and concluded that "the fact that certain litigation devices may not be available in an arbitration is part and parcel of arbitration's ability to offer `simplicity, informality, and expedition.'" Iberia Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless L.L.C., 379 F.3d 159 , 174 (5th Cir.2004) (

2007In rejecting a claim that the bar on class proceedings in an arbitration agreement had the effect of immunizing the company from low-value claims, the Fifth Circuit pointed out that it “must take into account that both federal and [the relevant state] policy favor arbitration as a method of dispute resolution” and concluded that “the fact that certain litigation devices may not be available in an arbitration is part and parcel of arbitration’s ability to offer ‘simplicity, informality, and expedition.’ ” Iberia Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Cingular Wire less, LLC, 379 F.3d 159 , 174 (5th Cir. 2004)

2007Id. [2] In Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25 (1st Cir.2006), the First Circuit held that a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement was not enforceable because it meant that individual plaintiffs would be unable to vindicate statutory rights, contravening the holdings in United States Supreme Court decisions.

2007Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 134 Cal. App. 4th 886 , 36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 456 (2005), petition for review and depublication request denied, 2006 Cal. LEXIS 4098 (Mar. 29,2006).

2007As our sister court said, “ ‘[a] company which wrongfully extracts a dollar from each of millions of customers will reap a handsome profit; the class action is often the only effective way to halt and redress such exploitation.’ ” Discover Bank, 36 Cal. 4th at 156 (quoting Blue Chip Stamps v. Superior Court, 18 Cal. 3d 381, 387 , 556 P.2d 755 , 134 Cal. Rptr. 393 (1976) (Tobriner, J., concurring)). ¶18 Of course, on its face, the class action waiver does not exculpate Cingular from anything; it merely channels dispute resolution into individual arbitration proceedings or small claims court.

2007As our sister court said, “ ‘[a] company which wrongfully extracts a dollar from each of millions of customers will reap a handsome profit; the class action is often the only effective way to halt and redress such exploitation.’ ” Discover Bank, 36 Cal. 4th at 156 (quoting Blue Chip Stamps v. Superior Court, 18 Cal. 3d 381, 387 , 556 P.2d 755 , 134 Cal. Rptr. 393 (1976) (Tobriner, J., concurring)). ¶18 Of course, on its face, the class action waiver does not exculpate Cingular from anything; it merely channels dispute resolution into individual arbitration proceedings or small claims court.

2007E.g., Discover Bank, 36 Cal.4th at 165-66 , 30 Cal. Rptr.3d 76 , 113 P.3d 1100 ; Kinkel, 223 Ill.2d at 19 , 306 Ill.Dec. 157 , 857 N.E.2d 250 . *1009 ¶ 26 By its terms, the class action waiver is not severable from the arbitration clause.

2007E.g., Discover Bank, 36 Cal. 4th at 165-66 ; Kinkel, 223 Ill. 2d at 19 . ¶26 By its terms, the class action waiver is not severable from the arbitration clause.

2007E.g., Hangman Ridge, 105 Wash.2d at 784-85 , 719 P.2d 531 . [1] The California court noted in Discover Bank that the plaintiff had not relied on the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; rather, the plaintiff brought the action under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, Del.Code Ann. title 6, §§ 2511-2527, and Delaware contract law.

2007E.g., Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d 778 .

2007In rejecting a claim that the bar on class proceedings in an arbitration agreement had the effect of immunizing the company from low-value claims, the Fifth Circuit pointed out that it "must take into account that both federal and [the relevant state] policy favor arbitration as a method of dispute resolution" and concluded that "the fact that certain litigation devices may not be available in an arbitration is part and parcel of arbitration's ability to offer `simplicity, informality, and expedition.'" Iberia Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless L.L.C., 379 F.3d 159 , 174 (5th Cir.2004) (

2007In rejecting a claim that the bar on class proceedings in an arbitration agreement had the effect of immunizing the company from low-value claims, the Fifth Circuit pointed out that it “must take into account that both federal and [the relevant state] policy favor arbitration as a method of dispute resolution” and concluded that “the fact that certain litigation devices may not be available in an arbitration is part and parcel of arbitration’s ability to offer ‘simplicity, informality, and expedition.’ ” Iberia Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Cingular Wire less, LLC, 379 F.3d 159 , 174 (5th Cir. 2004)

2007In Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2006), the First Circuit held that a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement was not enforceable because it meant that individual plaintiffs would be unable to vindicate statutory rights, contravening the holdings in United States Supreme Court decisions.

2007In these circumstances, the class action bar precluded the plaintiffs from vindicating their statutory rights, and thus, the court held, the “[p]laintiffs cannot be compelled to arbitrate their antitrust claims, both state and federal, if that bar remains in place.” Kristian, 446 F.3d at 59 .

2007But “[n]otwithstanding the rule of liberal interpretation, . . . the class action rule does not contemplate automatic affirmance whenever a trial court certifies a class.” Oda, 111 Wn.

2007But "[n]otwithstanding the rule of liberal interpretation, . . . the class action rule does not contemplate automatic affirmance whenever a trial court certifies a class." Oda, 111 Wash. App. at 92 , 44 P.3d 8 . "[A]ctual, [and] not presumed, conformance with Rule 23(a) remains . . . indispensable." [3] Gen.

2002“Class actions are specialized types of suits, and as a general rule must be brought and maintained in strict conformity with the requirements of CR 23.” DeFunis v. Odegaard, 84 Wn.2d 617, 622 , 529 P.2d 438 (1974).

2002“Class actions are specialized types of suits, and as a general rule must be brought and maintained in strict conformity with the requirements of CR 23.” DeFunis v. Odegaard, 84 Wn.2d 617, 622 , 529 P.2d 438 (1974).

2025App. 452, 453-54 , 63 P.3d 134 (2003).

2025Anderson v. Department of Social & Health Services considered a class action claim for compensation under the MWA for time that state employees spent commuting on an employer-provided ferry to work at the Special Commitment Center (SCC), a secure confinement facility located on McNeil Island. 115 Wn.

2024We also observed that “it [was] undisputed that the nurses could pursue a class action claim against Yakima [HMA].” Id.

2021DOR moved to dismiss the class action refund claims, arguing that a claim for a refund of a REET that has already been paid falls within the exclusive scope of RCW 82.32.180. 5 DOR asserted that, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Lacey Nursing Center, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 128 Wn.2d 40 , 905 P.2d 338 (1995), a class action claim for an excise tax refund under RCW 82.32.180 cannot proceed.

2021DOR moved to dismiss the class action refund claims, arguing that a claim for a refund of a REET that has already been paid falls within the exclusive scope of RCW 82.32.180. 5 DOR asserted that, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Lacey Nursing Center, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 128 Wn.2d 40 , 905 P.2d 338 (1995), a class action claim for an excise tax refund under RCW 82.32.180 cannot proceed.