Machado v. System4 LLC

Decision Date01 August 2013
Docket NumberSJC–11175a.
Citation993 N.E.2d 332,466 Mass. 1004
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
PartiesEdson Teles MACHADO & others v. SYSTEM4 LLC & another.


Eric H. Karp, Boston, for the defendant.


In Machado v. System4 LLC, 465 Mass. 508, 989 N.E.2d 464 (2013)( Machado ), we applied our holding from Feeney v. Dell Inc., 465 Mass. 470, 989 N.E.2d 439 (2013)( Feeney II ), that, following the United States Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011), a court may properly invalidate a class waiver in an arbitration agreement if a plaintiff “can demonstrate that he or she effectively cannot pursue a claim against [a] defendant in individual arbitration according to the terms of the agreement.” Machado, supra at 513, 989 N.E.2d 464, quoting Feeney II, supra at 472, 989 N.E.2d 439. In applying that holding to the facts of the case, we concluded that the plaintiffs could not make such a demonstration and accordingly reversed the decision of a judge in the Superior Court invalidating that class waiver on public policy grounds. Machado, supra at 516–517, 989 N.E.2d 464. Following the release of the Supreme Court's decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2304, 186 L.Ed.2d 417 (2013) (Amex ), which called into question the viability of our holding in Feeney II, we stayed the rescript in Machado and invited the parties to submit their views on the impact, if any, of Amex on our decision in Machado. The plaintiffs did not submit a timely response. The defendants submitted a response expressing their view that Amex had in fact abrogated our decision in Feeney II but did not directly affect our holding in Machado because we ultimately declined to invalidate the class waiver in that case. We agree with the defendants that Amex abrogates so much of our analysis in Machado as relies on our decision in Feeney II. See Feeney v. Dell Inc., 466 Mass. 1001, 1003, 993 N.E.2d 329, 2013 WL 3929051 (2013). Our analysis on the issue of the waiver of multiple damages, as well as our ultimate holding, remain sound. The case is hereby remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

The case was submitted on briefs.

1. Jocilene da Silva, Poliane Santos, Luiz Santos, Stenio Ferreira, and Glaucea de Olivera Santos.

2. NECCS, Inc., doing business as System4 of Boston, LLC.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Machado v. System4 LLC
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • April 13, 2015
    ...waiver provision was not an adequate ground on which to invalidate an agreement to arbitrate. See Machado v. System4 LLC, 466 Mass. 1004, 1004, 993 N.E.2d 332 (2013) (Machado II ). See also Machado I, supra at 513–517, 989 N.E.2d 464. We then remanded the case to the Superior Court judge fo......
  • Gammella v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • April 12, 2019
    ...right to bring a class proceeding" where none had previously existed. Machado v. System4 LLC, 465 Mass. 508, 514, 989 N.E.2d 464, S.C., 466 Mass. 1004, 993 N.E.2d 332 (2013).14 General Laws c. 93A, § 9 (2) was enacted before the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure (including rule 23 ) we......
  • Feeney v. Dell Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • August 1, 2013
  • Cruz v. Siddiqi
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • August 5, 2013
1 firm's commentaries
  • Fallout In The State Courts From Supreme Court Arbitration Decisions
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • August 16, 2013 the arbitration clause at issue, based on the Massachusetts court's interpretation of the AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion decision. 3 466 Mass. 1004 (2013). 4 SJC-11356, August 12, 2013. This article is for general information and does not include full legal analysis of the matters prese......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT