DirecTV v. Mattingly
Decision Date | 31 July 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 130,130 |
Citation | 829 A.2d 626,376 Md. 302 |
Parties | DIRECTV, Inc. v. John A. MATTINGLY, Sr. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
James K. Archibald (Marina M. Sabett, Venable, Baetjer and Howard, LLP, Baltimore, Steven E. Bledsoe, Stephen H. McClain, Kimberly Horsley, Kirkland & Ellis, Los Angeles, CA, Patrick J. Attridge, King & Attridge, Rockville, on brief), for petitioner.
John A. Mattingly, Jr. (Baldwin, Briscoe & Mattinly, Chtd., Lexington Park, on brief), for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ.
This case arises out of a February 1997 subscription contract between DIRECTV, petitioner, a provider of satellite television services, and one of its customers, John A. Mattingly, Sr., respondent. On August 6, 1999, respondent filed suit against petitioner1 alleging that petitioner improperly charged him an administrative late fee of $2.81. On November 9, 2001, the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County granted petitioner's motion to dismiss2 respondent's suit without prejudice. Respondent appealed that judgment to the Court of Special Appeals. On November 4, 2002, that court reversed the trial court's dismissal of respondent's suit against petitioner.3 Mattingly v. Hughes Electronics Corp., 147 Md.App. 624, 810 A.2d 498 (2002). Petitioner then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with this Court, and, on March 12, 2003, we granted the petition. DirecTV v. Mattingly, 373 Md. 406, 818 A.2d 1105 (2003). Petitioner presents two questions for our review:
We answer in the negative the first of petitioner's questions and hold that petitioner failed to provide sufficient notice of the changes to the provisions of the initial agreement contained in the subsequent 1997 modified document, which changes included an arbitration provision, because, pursuant to the plain language of petitioner's initial customer agreement with respondent, petitioner did not discuss, mention or even highlight any change in the customer agreement. Under the specific facts of the case sub judice, petitioner's failure to adequately follow the notice provisions of the initial customer agreement that petitioner alone authored, foreclosed respondent's ability to reasonably make an informed decision regarding his subscription for satellite television services. Given our holding with regard to petitioner's first question, it is unnecessary to address petitioner's second question. Similarly, we do not address any of respondent's alternative arguments. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.
Respondent subscribed to petitioner's satellite service in the course of purchasing the necessary satellite television equipment at a Circuit City store in Waldorf, Maryland. On February 20, 1997, respondent made an oral agreement to accept petitioner's satellite television service subject to the terms and conditions of a written customer agreement to be mailed to him thereafter. As a result of respondent's acceptance of the customer agreement petitioner immediately activated respondent's satellite service.
The following day, petitioner mailed respondent an invoice for his purchase of the satellite service. Petitioner included the aforementioned initial customer agreement within the envelope containing that invoice. This customer agreement was entitled, "CUSTOMER AGREEMENT effective as of August 28, 1996, until replaced"4 (hereinafter, the "initial customer agreement"). The first provision of the initial customer agreement, "AGREEMENT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS," stated:
[Italicized emphasis added.]
The initial customer agreement contains twenty-one other numbered provisions. Within the sixth numbered provision, entitled "FEES AND CHARGES," is a subprovision describing administrative late fees. It states, "If your payment is not received by DIRECTV before your next statement is issued, you may be charged an Administrative Late Fee up to the amount stated in Section 20 below." Section 20 states that an "Administrative Late Fee" is not to exceed $5.00. The initial customer agreement was silent as to arbitration.
On March 18, 1997, within a month of respondent's subscribing to petitioner's satellite service, petitioner mailed another proposed customer agreement (hereinafter, the "1997 modified document") to respondent. On its face it purported to be effective as of March 1, 1997, a date prior to its mailing to respondent. While that document differed from the initial agreement, it was not accompanied by any separate notice of the changes, or by any comparison of the existing agreement and new proposed agreement. While appearing nearly identical to the initial customer agreement, the 1997 modified document differed from its predecessor in that it contained unhighlighted and otherwise undescribed changes, including the addition of a twenty-third provision, entitled "ARBITRATION." The Arbitration provision stated:
It is undisputed that no separate description or any explanation of the changes, i.e., the new arbitration provision, was ever sent to respondent; the terms of the new document merely contained the arbitration provision while the initial agreement did not.5 Upon receipt of this new modified document, respondent did not cancel his service6 with petitioner and thus continued to receive petitioner's satellite services.7
In an invoice dated July 17, 1999, respondent was assessed a late fee by petitioner for a total of $2.81 for a "Past Due" amount of $56.12. Respondent paid this late fee and the accompanying outstanding balance. Then, on August 6, 1999, he filed a class action complaint against petitioner8 for the purpose of challenging the legality of petitioner's late fee. Respondent's complaint was comprised of four counts.9 The complaint alleged, in part, that petitioner "knew or should have known that the due date for the payment of satellite television services was unreasonably and unconscionably short and bore no relation to the standard billing cycles of other similarly situated businesses" and that late fees were "excessive and bore no relationship to the administrative charges incurred in processing late payments." Respondent amended his complaint on September 7, 1999.10
Petitioner and Hughes sought to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, but that court remanded the case because the lawsuit did not satisfy the subject matter jurisdiction requirement that in diversity claims in federal court the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (2003)) . The case was then returned to the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County. Petitioner and Hughes immediately moved for dismissal of respondent's complaint, alleging that his specific claims should be dismissed, or, in the alternative, that the circuit court proceedings must be stayed and arbitration compelled. The Circuit Court, after a hearing, found that respondent was required to arbitrate his claims against petitioner pursuant to the 1997 modified document and subsequent customer documents. That court then granted petitioner's motion to dismiss without prejudice and respondent appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. As previously mentioned, the Court of Special Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal of respondent's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kantsevoy v. Lumenr LLC
...to be given their ordinary and usual meaning, in light of the context within which they are employed.’ " DIRECTV, Inc. v. Mattingly , 376 Md. 302, 313, 829 A.2d 626, 632–33 (2003) (citations omitted). A court will presume that the parties meant what they stated in an unambiguous contract, w......
-
Lyons v. PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n
...that such silence, following a specified form of notice, will be considered assent to the new terms. See DIRECTV Inc. v. Mattingly , 376 Md. 302, 829 A.2d 626, 633 (2003). Further, "it is well-established in Maryland that ‘laws subsisting at the time of the making of a contract enter into a......
-
Rourke v. Amchem
...meaningful part of the language of the writing unless no other course can be sensibly and reasonably followed." DIRECTV, Inc. v. Mattingly, 376 Md. 302, 320, 829 A.2d 626 (2003)(quoting Sagner v. Glenangus Farms, Inc., 234 Md. 156, 167, 198 A.2d 277 (1964)). In this case, our role in review......
-
Cheek v. United Healthcare
...ordinarily a question of law for the court and, therefore, is subject to de novo review by an appellate court." DIRECTV v. Mattingly, 376 Md. 302, 312, 829 A.2d 626, 632 (2003). "Maryland follows the law of objective contract interpretation." Sy-Lene of Washington, Inc. v. Starwood Urban Re......
-
It Is Time the Law Begins to Protect Consumers from Significantly Onesided Arbitration Clauses Within Contracts of Adhesion
...of the proposed changes. However, the language and attention drawn to the notice is also important. See, e.g., DIRECTv v. Mattingly, 829 A.2d 626, 636-37 (Md. 2003) (observing "proper notice" requires that the customer receive "enough information to make an informed decision"); see also Bri......
-
Toc Winter 2009 - Table of Contents
...law is preempted by federal regulation only when the claim involves the court in ratemaking or market entry). 6. See DIRECTV v. Mattingly, 829 A.2d 626, 631 (Md. 2003) (explaining that the issue of whether the terms of a satellite television contract are binding is predicated on state contr......