Joel N. Kreizman
Partner
732-568-8363 jkreizman@sh-law.comFirm Insights
U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Review a Controversial New Jersey Arbitration Decision
Author: Joel N. Kreizman
Date: March 31, 2015
Key Contacts
Back
A California debt collector is challenging the Supreme Court of New Jersey Arbitration Decision regarding the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts.
U.S. Legal Services Group has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether the New Jersey arbitration decision conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
The Legal Background
As previously discussed on the Scarinci Hollenbeck Business Law News Blog, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Legal Services Group v. Atalese that arbitration clauses in consumer contracts must explicitly express that the party is forfeiting the right to sue in court. If not, the agreements will not be enforced.
The arbitration agreement at issue states: “In the event of any claim or dispute … the claim or dispute shall be submitted to binding arbitration upon the request of either party upon the service of that request on the other party…. Any decision of the arbitrator shall be final and may be entered into any judgment in any court of competent jurisdiction.”
The Supreme Court Petition
In its petition for certiorari, U.S. Legal presents the following question: “Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state-law rule holding that an arbitration agreement is unenforceable unless it affirmatively explains that the contracting party is waiving the right to sue in court.”
To support its case, U.S. Legal argues the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision is at odds with the FAA and the decisions of numerous other courts, including the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Its petition further argues that, if left uncorrected, the court’s decision will invalidate scores of arbitration agreements, noting that the rule is a “radical departure from innumerable contracting parties’ settled expectations.”
U.S. Legal also contends that the conflict between the position adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court and other courts will lead to forum shopping. “[A]ny time a dispute arises in a case involving an arbitration agreement that does not meet the New Jersey Supreme Court’s clear-and- unambiguous requirement, parties seeking to litigate will try their utmost to sue in New Jersey state court, while parties seeking to arbitrate will attempt the opposite,” the brief states.
To date, several groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have filed amicus curiae briefs in support of U.S. Legal. We will be closely tracking the status of this case and will post an update here should the Supreme Court decide to grant review.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Review a Controversial New Jersey Arbitration Decision
Author: Joel N. Kreizman
A California debt collector is challenging the Supreme Court of New Jersey Arbitration Decision regarding the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts.
U.S. Legal Services Group has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether the New Jersey arbitration decision conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
The Legal Background
As previously discussed on the Scarinci Hollenbeck Business Law News Blog, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Legal Services Group v. Atalese that arbitration clauses in consumer contracts must explicitly express that the party is forfeiting the right to sue in court. If not, the agreements will not be enforced.
The arbitration agreement at issue states: “In the event of any claim or dispute … the claim or dispute shall be submitted to binding arbitration upon the request of either party upon the service of that request on the other party…. Any decision of the arbitrator shall be final and may be entered into any judgment in any court of competent jurisdiction.”
The Supreme Court Petition
In its petition for certiorari, U.S. Legal presents the following question: “Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state-law rule holding that an arbitration agreement is unenforceable unless it affirmatively explains that the contracting party is waiving the right to sue in court.”
To support its case, U.S. Legal argues the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision is at odds with the FAA and the decisions of numerous other courts, including the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Its petition further argues that, if left uncorrected, the court’s decision will invalidate scores of arbitration agreements, noting that the rule is a “radical departure from innumerable contracting parties’ settled expectations.”
U.S. Legal also contends that the conflict between the position adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court and other courts will lead to forum shopping. “[A]ny time a dispute arises in a case involving an arbitration agreement that does not meet the New Jersey Supreme Court’s clear-and- unambiguous requirement, parties seeking to litigate will try their utmost to sue in New Jersey state court, while parties seeking to arbitrate will attempt the opposite,” the brief states.
To date, several groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have filed amicus curiae briefs in support of U.S. Legal. We will be closely tracking the status of this case and will post an update here should the Supreme Court decide to grant review.