On December 7, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, Docket No. 12-135. The case below is: Sutter v. Oxford Health Plans LLC, 675 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. N.J. 2012). The questions presented is as follows:
In Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758, 1776 (2010), this Court made clear that “class-action arbitration changes the nature of arbitration to such a degree that it cannot be presumed the parties consented to it by simply agreeing to submit their disputes to arbitration.”
In this case, an arbitrator concluded that the parties affirmatively consented to class arbitration on the basis of a contract provision stating: “No civil action concerning any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be instituted before any court, and all such disputes shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration.”
The question presented is:
Whether an arbitrator acts within his powers under the Federal Arbitration Act (as the Second and Third Circuits have held) or exceeds those powers (as the Fifth Circuit has held) by determining that parties affirmatively “agreed to authorize class arbitration,” Stolt-Nielsen, 130 S. Ct. at 1776, based solely on their use of broad contractual language precluding litigation and requiring arbitration of any dispute arising under their contract.
Stay tuned!
Related Posts
2012 Year-in-Review – SCOTUS Arbitration Case Law
Supreme Court Upholds Class Arbitration Decision in Sutter
U.S. Supreme Court Grants Cert to Class Arbitration Case
Article | Does Class Arbitration ‘Change the Nature’ of Arbitration? Stolt-Nielsen, AT&T and a Return to First Principles
AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion | Blawgosphere Round-up on Class Arbitration Decision 
Disputing Blog Cited by Law Review Article: ‘Still Litigating Arbitration in the Fifth Circuit, But Less Often’
