Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: June 14, 2023
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comClass action waivers are unenforceable without a mandatory arbitration agreement in place, according to a recent Appellate Division decision. Businesses should review their lease agreements, customer contracts, website terms of agreement, and other legal documents and make any necessary changes in light of the new bright-line rule.
The dispute in William Pace and Robert Walters v. Hamilton Cove et al. centers on lease contracts entered by the tenants of defendant Hamilton Cove Apartments (collectively with other related entities, the “Defendants”), a luxury apartment complex in Weehawken. Representative plaintiffs William Pace and Robert Walters (Plaintiffs) contend that in its advertisements, brochures, and oral statements to prospective tenants, Hamilton Cove Apartments promised the apartment complex would have “elevated, 24/7 security.” During an April 2020 tour of the apartment complex, Defendant’s representative advised Pace that security personnel would be stationed 24/7 at a podium near each building’s entrance.
Upon moving into the apartments, Plaintiffs learned that the apartment complex’s security cameras did not function. In addition, a front desk greeter/mailroom attendant in building A was only stationed at the front of the building for part of the day. In a subsequent lawsuit asserting claims of common law fraud and violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) against their landlord, Plaintiffs allege Defendants engaged in an unconscionable business practice in violation of the CFA, and that tenants overpaid for the apartments because they did not receive the full value promised, constituting an ascertainable loss.
Plaintiffs sought class action status, with their putative class including all the tenants of Hamilton Cove Apartments. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or, in the alternative, to strike Plaintiffs’ class action allegations. In support, Defendants argued that the leases were not contracts of adhesion, the class action waivers contained in the lease agreements were valid and enforceable, and a class action was not necessary to vindicate Plaintiffs’ interests. The trial court refused to dismiss the suit, concluding that Plaintiffs pleaded their fraud claims with the requisite specificity and had satisfied the requirements of a class action.
The Appellate Division affirmed. It held that a waiver of the right to maintain a class action is unenforceable absent a mandatory arbitration agreement.
In response to Defendants’ argument that class action waivers are enforceable so long as they are clear and unambiguous, the appeals court noted that in all of the cases cited by Defendants, the class action waiver was coupled with an arbitration agreement. As Judge Richard J. Geiger explained:
Here, in contrast, there was no agreement to arbitrate contractual disputes. Plaintiffs and the other tenants were free to litigate their contractual and fraud claims in court. Therefore, the policies favoring arbitration and encouraging enforcement of arbitration agreements, as expressed in section 2 of the [Federal Arbitration Act], do not apply and what the Supreme Court of the United States has said about class action waivers – because it was all intended to enhance the FAA’s arbitration policies – is irrelevant outside that context.
After determining that case law emanating from the FAA was inapplicable, the Appellate Division determined that New Jersey’s policy favoring class actions prevailed. “Considering our longstanding, fundamental public policy favoring class actions, we hold there is no societal interest in enforcing a class action waiver in a contract that does not contain a mandatory arbitration provision and conclude that the class action waivers in this case are unenforceable as a matter of law and public policy,” Judge Geiger wrote. “By adopting this bright-line rule, we advance the recognized benefits of class actions for both litigants and the courts.”
In this case, the Appellate Division found that assuming the facts alleged by Plaintiffs are true, a class action was “clearly favored” in the case. “Hundreds of tenants at Hamilton Cove are similarly affected by the lack of promised security,” Judge Geiger wrote. “Economic efficiency and judicial economy would be enhanced by the utilization of class action litigation, and inconsistent results would be avoided.”
The Appellate Division’s precedential decision create a new bright-line rule for class-action waivers under which they are unlikely to be enforced outside the arbitration context. To help ensure that your class action waivers will survive a legal challenge, it is essential that they be paired with a mandatory arbitration agreement.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100 or contact us using the contact us form above.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Class action waivers are unenforceable without a mandatory arbitration agreement in place, according to a recent Appellate Division decision. Businesses should review their lease agreements, customer contracts, website terms of agreement, and other legal documents and make any necessary changes in light of the new bright-line rule.
The dispute in William Pace and Robert Walters v. Hamilton Cove et al. centers on lease contracts entered by the tenants of defendant Hamilton Cove Apartments (collectively with other related entities, the “Defendants”), a luxury apartment complex in Weehawken. Representative plaintiffs William Pace and Robert Walters (Plaintiffs) contend that in its advertisements, brochures, and oral statements to prospective tenants, Hamilton Cove Apartments promised the apartment complex would have “elevated, 24/7 security.” During an April 2020 tour of the apartment complex, Defendant’s representative advised Pace that security personnel would be stationed 24/7 at a podium near each building’s entrance.
Upon moving into the apartments, Plaintiffs learned that the apartment complex’s security cameras did not function. In addition, a front desk greeter/mailroom attendant in building A was only stationed at the front of the building for part of the day. In a subsequent lawsuit asserting claims of common law fraud and violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) against their landlord, Plaintiffs allege Defendants engaged in an unconscionable business practice in violation of the CFA, and that tenants overpaid for the apartments because they did not receive the full value promised, constituting an ascertainable loss.
Plaintiffs sought class action status, with their putative class including all the tenants of Hamilton Cove Apartments. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or, in the alternative, to strike Plaintiffs’ class action allegations. In support, Defendants argued that the leases were not contracts of adhesion, the class action waivers contained in the lease agreements were valid and enforceable, and a class action was not necessary to vindicate Plaintiffs’ interests. The trial court refused to dismiss the suit, concluding that Plaintiffs pleaded their fraud claims with the requisite specificity and had satisfied the requirements of a class action.
The Appellate Division affirmed. It held that a waiver of the right to maintain a class action is unenforceable absent a mandatory arbitration agreement.
In response to Defendants’ argument that class action waivers are enforceable so long as they are clear and unambiguous, the appeals court noted that in all of the cases cited by Defendants, the class action waiver was coupled with an arbitration agreement. As Judge Richard J. Geiger explained:
Here, in contrast, there was no agreement to arbitrate contractual disputes. Plaintiffs and the other tenants were free to litigate their contractual and fraud claims in court. Therefore, the policies favoring arbitration and encouraging enforcement of arbitration agreements, as expressed in section 2 of the [Federal Arbitration Act], do not apply and what the Supreme Court of the United States has said about class action waivers – because it was all intended to enhance the FAA’s arbitration policies – is irrelevant outside that context.
After determining that case law emanating from the FAA was inapplicable, the Appellate Division determined that New Jersey’s policy favoring class actions prevailed. “Considering our longstanding, fundamental public policy favoring class actions, we hold there is no societal interest in enforcing a class action waiver in a contract that does not contain a mandatory arbitration provision and conclude that the class action waivers in this case are unenforceable as a matter of law and public policy,” Judge Geiger wrote. “By adopting this bright-line rule, we advance the recognized benefits of class actions for both litigants and the courts.”
In this case, the Appellate Division found that assuming the facts alleged by Plaintiffs are true, a class action was “clearly favored” in the case. “Hundreds of tenants at Hamilton Cove are similarly affected by the lack of promised security,” Judge Geiger wrote. “Economic efficiency and judicial economy would be enhanced by the utilization of class action litigation, and inconsistent results would be avoided.”
The Appellate Division’s precedential decision create a new bright-line rule for class-action waivers under which they are unlikely to be enforced outside the arbitration context. To help ensure that your class action waivers will survive a legal challenge, it is essential that they be paired with a mandatory arbitration agreement.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100 or contact us using the contact us form above.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!