Appendix F Model Amicus Motions and Briefs
Library | Handling Appeals in Arkansas (2021 Ed.) |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
ALLTEL CORPORATION and ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. APPELLANTS
v.
PETER ROSENOW, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons APPELLEES
Case No. CIV-13-995
Comes now the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce (the "Chamber"),
pursuant to Rule 4-6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, and for its Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in support of the Appellants, Alltel Corporation and Alltel Communications, Inc., states:
1. The Chamber is a non-profit organization committed to enhancing and promoting the economic climate of the State of Arkansas. The Chamber represents the interests of a diverse and widespread membership which includes approximately 1,200 businesses and organizations of every size, in every industry, and from each of Arkansas's seventy-five counties. The Chamber seeks to carry out its mission, in part, by advocating before Arkansas's appellate courts in an effort to create a legal environment which is encouraging to Arkansas businesses.
2. As part of its mission, the Chamber regularly files amicus briefs with this Court to highlight issues of serious concern to Arkansas's business community. This appeal, which involves the enforceability of arbitration clauses in customer service contracts, presents such a concern.
3. The important issue raised in this appeal is whether Arkansas businesses can rely on the enforceability of arbitration clauses in contracts with businesses and individual customers, given the persuasive evidence that arbitration provides a more efficient and cost-effective procedure for resolving customer disputes. This issue has broad public importance to Arkansas businesses. The Chamber, on behalf of its member businesses, has a compelling interest in the resolution of this issue.
4. The Chamber's proposed Brief is tendered to the Court with this Motion and incorporated herein by reference.
WHEREFORE, the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce respectfully requests that its Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief be granted and that its Amicus Curiae Brief be filed in this appeal in support of Appellants.
Respectfully submitted,
KEVIN A. CRASS, #84029
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, llp
400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3522
Telephone: (501) 376-2011
Facsimile: (501) 376-2147
E-Mail: crass@fridayfirm.com
R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, #93083
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, llp
3425 North Futrall Drive, Suite 103
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72203-6252
Telephone: (479) 695-1888
Facsimile: (479)-695-2147
E-Mail: lawson@fridayfrim.com
By:__________
Kevin A. Crass
Attorneys for the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce
Certification: I hereby certify that:
I have submitted and served on opposing counsel (except for incarcerated pro se litigants) an unredacted and, if required, a redacted PDF document(s) that comply with the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. The PDF document(s) are identical to the corresponding parts of the paper document(s) from which they were created as filed with the court. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief formed after scanning the PDF documents for viruses with an antivirus program, the PDF documents are free of computer viruses. A copy of this certificate has been submitted with the paper copies filed with the court and has been served on all opposing parties. Identification of paper documents not in PDF format:
The following original paper documents are not in PDF format and are not included in the PDF document(s): None.
R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, #93083 KEVIN A. CRASS, #84029
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, llp Friday, Eldredge & Clark, llp
3425 North Futrall Drive, Suite 103 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
Fayetteville, AR 72203-6252 Little Rock, AR 72201-3522
Telephone: (479) 695-1888 Telephone: (501) 376-2011
Facsimile: (479)-695-2147 Facsimile: (501) 376-2147
E-Mail: lawson@fridayfrim.com E-Mail: crass@fridayfirm.com
By:__________
Kevin A. Crass
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been sent to the following by U.S. mail this ___ day of December, 2013:
Steven W. Quattlebaum
Chad W. Pekron
QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS
TULL & BURROW PLLC
111 Center Street, Suite 1900
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Scott E. Poynter
EMERSON PAYNTER LLP
500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 305
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Todd Turner
ARNOLD, BATSON, TURNER &
TURNER, P.A.
501 Crittenden Street
P.O. Box 480
Arkadelphia, Arkansas 71923
The Honorable Grisham A. Phillips
Saline County Courthouse
200 N. Main St.
Benton, Arkansas 72015
__________
Kevin A. Crass
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
ALLTEL CORPORATION and ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. APPELLANTS v.
PETER ROSENOW, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons APPELLEES
Case No. CIV-13-995
KEVIN A. CRASS, #84029
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, llp
400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3522
Telephone: (501) 376-2011
Facsimile: (501) 376-2147
E-Mail: crass@fridayfirm.com
R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, #93083
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, llp
3425 North Futrall Drive, Suite 103
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72203-6252
Telephone: (479) 695-1888
Facsimile: (479) 695-2147
E-Mail: lawson@fridayfrim.com
Attorneys for the Arkansas State
Chamber of Commerce
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................iii
ARGUMENT..................................................................................................Arg 1
I. Statement of Interest...............................................................................Arg 1
II. Discussion..............................................................................................Arg 1
A. Arbitration Lowers Prices For Consumers
And Supports The State's Economy...............................................Arg 1
B. Judicial Reluctance To Enforce Arbitration Agreements.................Arg 3
C. Judicial Reluctance To Enforce Arbitration Agreements Should Be Replaced With Uniform Acknowledgment Of The Advantages Of Arbitration.................................................Arg 4
D. The Waiver Of Arbitration Rights Is Not Favored..........................Arg 7
CONCLUSION...............................................................................................Arg 8
CASES
14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009).............................................................................Arg 3, 5
Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995).........................................................................Arg 3, 4, 5
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 174 (2011).......................................................................Arg 2, 3, 6
Barker v. Gold U.S.A., Inc., 154 F.3d 788 (8th Cir. 1998)...................................................................Arg 7
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991).................................................................................Arg 2
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001).................................................................................Arg 4
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983).....................................................................................Arg 7
Miller Brewing Co. v. Ft. Worth Distributing Co., Inc., 781 F.2d 494 (5th Cir. 1986)...................................................................Arg 7
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. , 473 U.S. 614 (1985).............................................................................Arg 2, 8
Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772 (2010).............................................................................Arg 4
STATUTES
9 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq......................................................................................Arg 1
9 U.S.C. § 2...................................................................................................Arg 3
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Am. Arbitration Ass'n, Consumer-Related Disputes, Supplementary Procedures § C-5.................................................................Arg 5
H.R. Rep. No. 97-542 of the FAA, at 3 (1982)............................................Arg 2
TREATISES
Aaron-Andrew Bruhl, The Unconscionability Game: Strategic Judging and the Evolution of Federal Arbitration Law, 83 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 1420 (2008)................................................................Arg 4
John Cooley & Steven Lubet, Arbitration Advocacy, ¶ 1.3.1 (2d ed. 2003)................................................................................Arg 5
Michael Delikat & Morris Kleiner, An Empirical Study of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Where Do Plaintiffs Better Vindicate Their Rights?,
58 Disp. Res. J. 56 (Nov. 2003-Jan. 2004)..............................................Arg 6
Christopher R. Drahozal, Arbitration Costs and Forum Accessibility: Empirical Evidence, 41 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 813 (2008).......................................................Arg 5
Christopher R. Drahozal, "Unfair" Arbitration Clauses, 2001 U.Ill. L. Rev. 695............................................................................Arg 2
Christopher Drahozal & Samantha Zyontz, Creditor Claims in Arbitration and in Court, 25 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 843 (2010)...............................................Arg 6
Drahozal & Zyontz, An Empirical Study of AAA Consumer...
To continue reading
Request your trial