On May 2, 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to yet another consumer arbitration case, CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, No. 10-948. In Greenwood, the Ninth Circuit decided whether the word “sue,” as used in the Credit Repair Organization Act (“CROA”) means “arbitrate.” The court concluded that Congress meant what it said in using the term “sue,” and that it did not mean “arbitrate.” The Supreme Court is expected to resolve a spit between the Ninth Circuit and Third and Eleventh Circuits.
Briefs and Documents (from SCOTUSblog):
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioners’ reply
- Amicus brief of DRI – the Voice of the Defense Bar
- Amicus brief of Consumer Data Industry Association
Hat tip to Mark Kantor.
Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration
Related Posts
Corporate Counsel: Citi, Discover Can’t Shake Credit Card Antitrust Suit Over Arbitration
AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion | Blawgosphere Round-up on Class Arbitration Decision 
GUEST-POST | Possible Outcomes for Class Arbitration Waivers in Consumer Contracts 
Recent Developments in Arbitration Unconscionability
Prawfsblawg: Allocating Power Between Courts and Arbitrators – and Why Scholars of Federal Courts Should Care
SCOTUS Holds Class Arbitration Must be Explicitly Provided for in Agreement
