Meoli v. AT & T Wireless 5/18/05 CA1/5

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: A106061

Case Date: 08/25/2005

Preview:Filed 5/18/05 Meoli v. AT&T Wireless Services CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

PORSHA MEOLI, ALAN CHERRIGAN, JAEL SALAS, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants. A106061, A106340, A106341 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. JCCP 4332)

In Szetela v. Discover Bank (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1094 (Szetela), the Court of Appeal held an arbitration clause prohibiting class-wide arbitration to be unconscionable and unenforceable. The trial court in the present case relied upon Szetela to rule that the arbitration clause at issue here is likewise unconscionable. Recognizing that the issue is pending before our Supreme Court, we will not follow Szetela and will conclude instead that under the facts in the present case the contractual ban on class-wide arbitration is not unduly one-sided, harsh, or in violation of public policy.1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Three separate lawsuits were initially brought against defendant AT&T Wireless and other providers of wireless telephone service, challenging the "early termination fee"

1

charged to customers who end their wireless telephone service before the expiration of the term of the service agreement. First, Porsha Meoli and two other named plaintiffs brought a class action in Alameda County to challenge both the early termination fee and AT&T's locked handsets that preclude the use of competitors' networks. Plaintiffs alleged that the early termination fee constituted an unlawful liquidated damages provision and thereby violated the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code,

Download Meoli v. AT & T Wireless 5/18/05 CA1/5.pdf