Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, SUPREME COURT DOCKET: Recent decisions, cases, and petitions pending High Court review, (Feb 18, 2015)

This Antitrust Law Daily feature presents a chart highlighting the decisions, arguments, briefs, and petitions on antitrust and trade regulation issues before the 2014 Term of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Currently, there are 11 antitrust and trade regulation cases that are awaiting Supreme Court review. Since the opening of the 2014 term, the Court has issued an opinion in one antitrust case; granted certiorari in two additional antitrust cases; and denied certiorari in 12 other cases involving acquisitions and mergers, advertising, antitrust, consumer protection, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Sprint Spectrum L.P., doing business as Sprint PCS, petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari on February 10, 2015, seeking review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York that affirmed an arbitrator’s partial arbitration award terminating arbitration proceedings and authorizing the pursuit of a putative class action in a consumer’s suit against Sprint for violations of the Kansas Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act. Consumer Vincent Emilio originally filed suit against Sprint, challenging how the wireless communications services provider described a New York State Excise Tax surcharge on its invoices to customers.

According to the petition, the customer agreement between Emilio and Sprint contained an arbitration provision requiring mandatory arbitration of disputes and stating that no claim between the parties could be resolved on a class-wide basis. However, the Second Circuit upheld the federal district court’s decision, affirming the arbitrator’s ruling that Sprint could not be compelled to proceed with class arbitration under the Supreme Court’s decision in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., (130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010), 2010-1 Trade Cases ¶76,982), and that Emilio could not be compelled to proceed with bilateral arbitration under Kansas law.

Sprint argues that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction or authority to defeat the arbitration agreement altogether, and that the Second Circuit erred in failing to: (1) consider the issue de novo; (2) vacate the partial final award issued by the arbitrator on March 10, 2011; and (3) vacate the arbitration award on the basis of manifest disregard of the law.

Specifically, Sprint asks the Supreme Court: "Once an arbitrator rules that the parties’ arbitration agreement does not permit class arbitration and that the parties’ intent was to preclude—not permit—class arbitration, can the arbitrator then refuse to compel bilateral arbitration, and instead provide a party to a binding arbitration agreement the right to abandon arbitration and pursue class action litigation?"

For details about this and other petitions and cases pending before the Supreme Court, please consult the chart of antitrust and trade regulation cases awaiting decision in the 2014 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: Antitrust AcquisitionsMergers Advertising ConsumerProtection RICO StateUnfairTradePractices