Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, SUPREME COURT DOCKET: Recent decisions, cases, and petitions pending High Court review, (Dec 16, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

This Antitrust Law Daily feature presents a chart highlighting the decisions, arguments, briefs, and petitions on antitrust and trade regulation issues before the 2015 Term of the U.S. Supreme Court.

To date, there are 16 antitrust and trade regulation cases that are awaiting Supreme Court Review. Since the opening of the October 2015 term, the Court has issued an opinion in an advertising case; granted summary disposition in another advertising case; granted review in two other cases involving privacy and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); and denied review in 10 cases concerning advertising, antitrust, consumer protection, franchising & distribution, and RICO.

Advertising, arbitration. The Supreme Court issued an opinion on December 14, holding that a California appellate court erred in refusing to enforce an arbitration provision in DIRECTV’s customer contracts. In the opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer and joined by five other justices, the appellate court’s ruling was found to be inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because the California court’s interpretation of the FAA did not place arbitration contracts on equal footing with all other contracts (DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, Dkt. 14-462).

Franchising, attorney misfeasance. The High Court also denied a hotel franchisee’s petition for review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, which affirmed a district court’s denial of the franchisee’s motion to set aside a default judgment in a breach of franchise agreement case. The franchisee’s attorneys’ misfeasance did not justify reopening the judgment, the appellate court determined. In its petition, the franchisee asked: (1) whether abandonment by an attorney may provide a basis for relief in a monetary civil action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6); and (2) whether a client is obligated to diligently follow his own case when he is unknowingly relying on the misrepresentation of his attorney (Grover v. Choice Hotels International, Inc., Dkt. 15-443).

Unfair trade practices, arbitration. A Verizon Wireless customer, suing Verizon for consumer fraud under New York law, was denied U.S. Supreme Court review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City that found meritless the customer’s various constitutional challenges to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The customer had asked: (1) whether the application of the FAA to state-law private rights brought within the jurisdiction of the federal courts violates Article III of the United States Constitution; and (2) whether Congress’ adoption of the alternative scheme of adjudication under the FAA, combined with the federal courts’ enforcement of the statute as mandated by Congress, constitutes “state action” (Katz v. Cellco Partnership, Dkt. 15-542).

For details about these and other petitions and cases pending before the Supreme Court, please consult the chart of antitrust and trade regulation cases awaiting decision in the 2015 term. Issued opinions, granted petitions, pending petitions, and denied petitions are listed separately, along with a summary of the questions presented and the current status of each case.

News: Advertising Antitrust FranchisingDistribution StateUnfairTradePractices