Law papers assignment Help-Brief American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant and The Toy Yoda confusion, found in Contracts LBS PDF on p. 257
Part 1: Brief American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant
(skim concurrence and dissents)
Part 2: The Toy Yoda confusion, found in Contracts LBS PDF on p. 257 . Read the Toy Yoda contracts dispute in the Text at p. 257. Answer all 5 questions in the text relating to this dispute.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 12–133
AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v. ITALIAN COLORS RESTAURANT ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[June 20, 2013]
JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
We consider whether a contractual waiver of class arbitration is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act when the plaintiff ’s cost of individually arbitrating afederal statutory claim exceeds the potential recovery.
I Respondents are merchants who accept American Express cards. Their agreement with petitioners—AmericanExpress and a wholly owned subsidiary—contains a clausethat requires all disputes between the parties to be resolved by arbitration. The agreement also provides that“[t]here shall be no right or authority for any Claims to be arbitrated on a class action basis.” In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation, 667 F. 3d 204, 209 (CA2 2012). Respondents brought a class action against petitionersfor violations of the federal antitrust laws. According torespondents, American Express used its monopoly power in the market for charge cards to force merchants to accept credit cards at rates approximately 30% higher than
2 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. v. ITALIAN COLORS
RESTAURANT
Opinion of the Court
the fees for competing credit cards.1 This tying arrangement, respondents said, violated §1 of the Sherman Act. They sought treble damages for the class under §4 of theClayton Act.
Petitioners moved to compel individual arbitrationunder the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq. In resisting the motion, respondents submitted adeclaration from an economist who estimated that the cost of an expert analysis necessary to prove the antitrust claims would be “at least several hundred thousand dollars, and might exceed $1 million,” while the maximum recovery for an individual plaintiff would be $12,850, or$38,549 when trebled. App. 93. The District Court granted the motion and dismissed the lawsuits. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings.It held that because respondents had established that“they would incur prohibitive costs if compelled to arbitrate under the class action waiver,” the waiver was un- enforceable and the arbitration could not proceed. In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation, 554 F. 3d 300, 315–316 (CA2 2009).
We granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further consideration in light of Stolt-Nielsen
S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U. S. 662 (2010), which held that a party may not be compelled to submit to class arbitration absent an agreement to do so. American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 559 U. S. 1103 (2010). The Court of Appeals stood by its reversal, stating that its earlier ruling did not compel class arbitration. In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation, 634 F. 3d 187, 200 (CA2 2011). It then sua sponte reconsidered its ruling in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563
