From the
Executive Director Stuart Zanville
Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles
The U.S. Supreme Court Its primary business seems to be protecting businesses
From the After five years in business, it’s pretty
clear that the primary business of history’s most pro-business U.S. Supreme Court is protecting businesses. Do you catch my drift? Am I being too
Stuart Zanville CAALA
subtle here? Well, if you need proof, read on. The pro-business, anti-consumer
tendencies of the current Supreme Court were cemented in 2006 with the appointment of Justice Samuel Alito, replacing Sandra Day O’Connor. Alito joined Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow conservatives Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas to forge a majority that in the past five years has been more receptive to busi- ness concerns than any Supreme Court in recent memory. The Roberts’ Court’s pro-corporate
From the Executive Director
Stuart Zanville CAALA
decisions culminated in last year’s Citizens United ruling that gave corporations the right to spend freely on political cam- paign advertising. Yes, defenders of the Court will point
Stuart Zanville
out that early in 2011 there were several Supreme Court decisions that were not well received by pro-business groups, but any doubt about the anti-consumer ten- dencies of the Court were dispelled on April 27 with the ruling in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion (U.S. 2011) __ U.S. __,
From the Executive Director
131 S.Ct. 1740. In a 5-4 vote, the justices held that corporations may use arbitration agreements to take away the rights of con- sumers and employees to join together through class actions to hold corporations accountable.
CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen, chief legal analyst
Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles
and legal editor for CBS News, writing on The Atlantic Web site said, “The decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion is as big a pro-business, pro corporate ruling as we’ve ever seen from the Roberts’ Court.” Cohen adds, “In AT&T v. Concepcion, the Court’s five conservative justices banded together to hand Big Business yet another huge legal victory, this time in the context of compelled arbitration clauses, which sets back for decades the rights of individual consumers.” Vanderbilt University law professor,
Executive Director By Stuart Zanville
Brian T. Fitzpatrick, an expert on class- action litigation, was quoted in articles in both the L.A. Times and New York Times that the ruling “was the biggest ever on class actions.” Fitzpatrick says “It gives companies a
Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles
green light to exempt themselves from all class actions from their customers or from their employees. Companies can basically
LIFE CARE PLANNER
BURNS & BACK INJURIES SPINAL CORD INJURIES HEAD TRAUMA HAND INJURIES
AMPUTATIONS CHRONIC PAIN BIRTH INJURIES MAJOR ORGANS
LIFE CARE PLANNING
Karen Luckett OTR, CHT, CLCP, CCM
Injury & Disability Expert
MEDICAL COST REPORTS DAY-IN-THE-LIFE VIDEOS IME OBSERVATIONS
injuryxpert@gmail.com 84— The Advocate Magazine JUNE 2011 LIFE CARE PLANNER
escape from the civil justice system and escape class actions so long as they do so by means of arbitration agreements. This is a game-changer for businesses. It’s one of the most important and favorable cases for businesses in a very long time.” Deepak Gupta, who directs Public
Citizen’s Litigation Group’s Consumer Justice Project, explained the Court’s ruling this way: This morning, the U.S. Supreme
Court dealt a crushing blow to American consumers and employees, ruling that companies can ban class actions in the fine print of contracts. Now, whenever you sign a contract to get a cell phone, open a bank account or take a job, you may be giving up your right to hold companies account- able for fraud, discrimination or other illegal practices. The ruling obviously will have a great
impact on Consumer Attorneys and the people they represent. Ordinary Americans with civil rights,
labor, consumer and other kinds of claims that stem from corporate wrongdoing will no longer be able to join together to obtain justice.
American Association for Justice American Association for Justice
(AAJ) President Gibson Vance said, “The Supreme Court has allowed major corpo- rations to grant themselves immunity when they cheat consumers or employees. This is a death blow to Americans’ chances for justice when faced with forced arbitration clauses. This devastating deci- sion has the potential to result in virtually no consumer or employee cases involving small claims being heard anywhere.” Class-action lawsuits have long been a
favorite target of anti-consumer, conserva- tive members of the media, business trade associations, anti-trial lawyer organizations and right wing political parties. Now, five Supreme Court Justices with the same ideological bent join that list.
(310) 201-8478
(805)
EXPEDITED CA
EXPEDITED CASES ACCEPTED
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96