Mandatory Arbitration Challenges: A Legal Analysis by Jeremy Robinson

Originally Published in Daily Journal: November 9, 2015

Introduction to Mandatory Arbitration Issues

Jeremy Robinson, a legal innovator reshaping consumer protection law at Savin Hennessey & Kim LLP, examines the intricate challenges posed by mandatory arbitration clauses. Known for his precedent-setting victories and analytical prowess, Robinson has become a catalyst for systemic change in consumer protection law.

The Current State of Mandatory Arbitration

In this compelling analysis for the Daily Journal, “Battles expose core problems with arbitration system,” Robinson examines the intricate challenges posed by mandatory arbitration clauses through the lens of recent 23andMe cases. The article illuminates the fundamental tensions between private arbitration and due process, highlighting how these clauses often extend beyond their intended purpose.

Key Findings from the 23andMe Cases

Robinson’s analysis centers on the recent cases filed against 23andMe, which provide a unique window into the complexities of mandatory arbitration. These cases demonstrate the challenges that arise when multiple arbitrators reach conflicting decisions, and when courts have limited ability to intervene in the arbitration process.

Historical Context and Evolution

The article expertly traces the evolution of mandatory arbitration issues, beginning with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which effectively allowed companies to eliminate class actions through arbitration clauses. This foundation has led to the current landscape where companies increasingly implement these clauses in various transactions.

Critical Issues Identified

Robinson’s examination is particularly relevant as government regulators and legislators continue to evaluate the impact of mandatory arbitration. His analysis of the 23andMe cases reveals several critical issues in the current system:

• The lack of due process considerations in mandatory arbitration
• The absence of effective appellate review
• The complexity of arbitration clauses for laypeople
• The questionable voluntary nature of mandatory arbitration provisions

About the Author

Jeremy Robinson is an award-winning attorney recognized for his mastery of legal research, writing, and strategy. His precedent-setting success in Bolger v. Amazon.com (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 431 earned him the Consumer Advocate of the Year award in 2021 from the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, following his 2016 President’s Award. His work has been featured in Bloomberg, The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today, and CNBC.

Robinson has co-authored significant amicus briefs with Public Justice in key appeals involving Amazon and secured crucial rulings in cases like M.F. v. Pacific Pearly Hotel Management, LLC (2017). Admitted to all California courts and the Third, Fifth, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals, he has successfully steered hundreds of complex cases to resolution throughout his 27-year career.

A prolific writer and speaker on emerging legal issues, Robinson regularly contributes to the Daily Journal and Daily Transcript, delivers CLE-approved presentations, and has authored a book chapter. Beyond his legal work, he is a musician, father of two, and puzzle enthusiast.

Read the original published analysis in the Daily Journal.

Contact Jeremy Robinson at SHK Law

Ready to discuss your case? Schedule a free case evaluation with Jeremy Robinson.

SHK LAW – SAVIN HENNESSEY & KIM

15915 Ventura Blvd, Suite 201

Encino, California 91436

Phone: (818) 960-0011

Supreme Court Analysis: Preventing ‘Infinite’ Statute of Limitations in Class Actions by Jeremy Robinson

Originally Published in Daily Journal: June 13, 2018

Introduction to Class Action Tolling

Jeremy Robinson, a legal innovator reshaping consumer protection law at Savin Hennessey & Kim LLP, examines the Supreme Court’s significant ruling on the “American Pipe tolling” rule and its implications for class action litigation. This analysis explores how the Court’s decision prevents a potentially infinite statute of limitations in class action cases.

Historical Context and Evolution

More than 40 years ago, in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, the Supreme Court established that when class certification is denied, the statute of limitations is tolled for any member of the class who wants to intervene in the foundered class case. This principle was further developed in Crown, Cork & Seal v. Parker, where the high court clarified that this tolling also applied to any class member who wanted to file a separate individual case following an unsuccessful bid for class certification.

The China Agritech Case

The recent case of China Agritech involved a third attempt by purchasers of China Agritech’s common stock to pursue a securities class action. The case’s history demonstrates the complexity of class certification issues:

• The first class suit failed certification due to inability to prove the stock traded on an efficient market
• The second attempt failed due to “typicality and adequacy” concerns
• Both cases settled after denial of class certification and were dismissed
• Resh, not involved in earlier cases, filed a new case after the limitations period expired

The Circuit Split and Supreme Court’s Resolution

The district court initially dismissed Resh’s complaint as untimely, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, relying on American Pipe. The appeals court reasoned that allowing successive class actions would:

• Be consistent with the policies behind American Pipe tolling
• Promote economy of litigation
• Reduce incentives to file multiple redundant class actions before certification decisions

The Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court disagreed with the 9th Circuit’s interpretation. The Court drew important distinctions between individual claims and class claims:

1. For individual claims, delaying until after class certification makes sense because:
   • If certification is granted, the individual claim becomes unnecessary
   • If certification is denied, individual claims can proceed without limitation issues
2. For class claims, however, the Court identified significant problems with extending tolling:
   • Risk of infinite statute of limitations as each denied certification could spawn new class actions
   • Potential for repeated litigation of the same issues
   • Inefficient use of judicial resources

Justice Sotomayor’s Concurrence

Justice Sotomayor offered important additional insights, particularly regarding cases not subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. She noted that:

• Rule 23 lacks similar pre-suit notice provisions
• Absent class members may be unaware of pending suits
• Different considerations might apply when certification is denied for different reasons

Practical Implications

The Court’s decision promotes several important objectives:

1. Encourages early filing of all potential class actions
2. Facilitates consolidation of related cases
3. Enables courts to select the most appropriate class representatives
4. Promotes efficiency in complex litigation management

Looking Forward

This ruling provides clear guidance for practitioners: the time to file a class action falls outside the bounds of American Pipe tolling. The decision reinforces the importance of timely filing and proper case management in class action litigation.

Read the full analysis in the Daily Journal

Contact Jeremy Robinson at SHK Law

Schedule Your Free Case Evaluation Today

SHK LAW -SAVIN HENNESSEY & KIM

15915 Ventura Blvd, Suite 201 Encino, California

91436 Phone:

(818) 960-0011

Major Product Liability Developments in 2024: Expert Analysis by Jeremy Robinson

Originally Published in Law360: August 23, 2024

The first half of 2024 has witnessed transformative developments in product liability law. From the Supreme Court’s dismantling of Chevron deference to groundbreaking PFAS settlements and a landmark CPSC ruling on Amazon’s liability, these changes are reshaping the legal landscape. As a legal innovator at Savin Hennessey & Kim LLP, Jeremy Robinson provides expert analysis on these crucial developments.

The End of Chevron Deference

In a watershed moment for administrative law, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decades-old Chevron doctrine in June 2024. The ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo fundamentally changes how courts interpret agency regulations.

Key Aspects of the Ruling:

• Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority, instructed judges to use their own judgment in evaluating agency statutory authority
• The decision creates legal uncertainty across multiple sectors, including environmental, energy, and healthcare
• Dissenting Justices argued for maintaining Chevron as the “cornerstone of administrative law”

Implications for FDA Regulation

The ruling’s impact extends to FDA regulation of off-label drug promotion. Legal experts suggest this could lead to significant changes in how the FDA’s interpretation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is challenged and applied.

Landmark PFAS Settlements

2024 has seen unprecedented settlements addressing PFAS contamination of public water systems:

DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva Settlement

• $1.18 billion agreement approved in February
• Covers remediation of contaminated public water systems
• Includes testing and future remediation provisions

3M Settlement

• Up to $12.5 billion settlement approved in April
• Encompasses approximately 12,000 public water systems
• Addresses PFAS in firefighting foam
• Innovative opt-out structure for water systems

CPSC’s Groundbreaking Amazon Ruling

In a decision with far-reaching implications for e-commerce, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission determined that Amazon bears legal responsibility as a distributor for products sold by third-party sellers.

The Ruling’s Significance

The unanimous order established Amazon’s distributor status for products including:

• Faulty carbon monoxide detectors
• Hair dryers lacking electrocution protection
• Children’s sleepwear not meeting flammability standards

Expert Analysis from Jeremy Robinson

Drawing from his experience winning a California appellate case holding Amazon liable for a defective laptop battery, Robinson provides crucial insight on the ruling:

“They pretty thoroughly dismantled Amazon’s various arguments about them just being a logistics provider or facilitator,” Robinson explains. “The decision was very thorough, and went through piece by piece, and explained why that’s not true and why Amazon’s characterization of itself drastically underestimates its actual level of involvement in these things.”

Looking Forward

These developments signal a transformative period in product liability law. The end of Chevron deference, massive PFAS settlements, and new precedents for e-commerce liability are reshaping how courts, companies, and regulators approach product safety and liability issues.

Practical Implications

• Increased judicial scrutiny of agency interpretations
• New frameworks for addressing environmental contamination
• Enhanced accountability for online marketplaces
• Expanded consumer protections in e-commerce

Read the full analysis in Law360

Contact Jeremy Robinson at SHK Law

Schedule a Free Case Evaluation Today

SHK LAW – SAVIN HENNESSEY & KIM

15915 Ventura Blvd, Suite 201

Encino, California 91436

Phone: (818) 960-0011