Big Business Wins—Court OKs Antitrust Class Action Waivers

, New York Law Journal

   |0 Comments

Melvyn B. Ruskin and Natasha A. Moskvina
Melvyn B. Ruskin and Natasha A. Moskvina

9. Id.

10 Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 US 614 (1985).

11 Id. at 629.

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 Id. at 632-636.

15 Stendig Int'l, 633 F.Supp. at 28.

16 Gemco LatinoAmerica v. Seiko Time, 671 F.Supp. 972, 979 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (holding that domestic antitrust claims are subject to arbitration); Syscomm Int'l v. Synoptics Commc'ns, 856 F.Supp. 135 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (granting plaintiff's request to compel arbitration); NY Cross Harbor R.R. Terminal v. Consolidated Rail, 72 F.Supp.2d 70, 80 (E.D.N.Y. 1998); Empire State Ethanol & Energy v. BBI Int'l, 2009 WL 790962 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2009).

17 Tradecomet.com v. Google, 435 Fed.Appx. 31, 37 (2d Cir. 2011) (noting in dicta that Mitsubishi Motors limited American Safety); see also Hough v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 946 F.2d 883 (2d Cir. 1991) (affirming, without opinion, Hough v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 757 F.Supp. 283 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (noting in dicta that the foundations of the American Safety doctrine have been significantly eroded and holding that antitrust claims may be submitted to arbitration).

18 Am. Express Co., 133 S.Ct. 2304.

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202640141456

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.