McGill v. Citibank, N.A.
Decision Date | 06 April 2017 |
Docket Number | S224086 |
Citation | 216 Cal.Rptr.3d 627,393 P.3d 85,2 Cal.5th 945 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | Sharon MCGILL, Plaintiff and Respondent; v. CITIBANK, N.A., Defendant and Appellant. |
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, Julia B. Strickland, Stephen J. Newman, David W. Moon and Marcos D. Sasso, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Appellant.
Horvitz & Levy, Lisa Perrochet, John F. Querio and Felix Shafir, Burbank, for Association of Southern California Defense Counsel as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Deborah J. La Fetra, Sacramento, for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Leland Chan, San Francisco, for California Bankers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Haynes and Boone and Mary-Christine Sungaila, Costa Mesa, for International Association of Defense Counsel as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Mayer Brown, Andrew J. Pincus, Archis A. Parasharami and Donald M. Falk, Palo Alto, for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Capstone Law, Raul Perez, Melissa Grant, Glenn A. Danas, Ryan H. Wu, Liana Carter and Katherine W. Kehr, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff & Respondent.
Scott L. Nelson ; Chavez & Gertler, Mark A. Chavez, Mill Valley, and Nance F. Becker, San Francisco, for Public Citizen, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
Barbara Jones for AARP as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
In previous decisions, this court has said that the statutory remedies available for a violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA; Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq. ), the unfair competition law (UCL; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq. ), and the false advertising law (id ., § 17500 et seq.) include public injunctive relief, i.e., injunctive relief that has the primary purpose and effect of prohibiting unlawful acts that threaten future injury to the general public. (Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems , Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 303, 315-316, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 58, 66 P.3d 1157 (Cruz ); Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1066, 1077, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 334, 988 P.2d 67 (Broughton ).) The question we address in this case is the validity of a provision in a predispute arbitration agreement that waives the right to seek this statutory remedy in any forum. We hold that such a provision is contrary to California public policy and is thus unenforceable under California law. We further hold that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA; 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. ) does not preempt this rule of California law or require enforcement of the waiver provision. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
In 2001, plaintiff Sharon McGill opened a credit card account with defendant Citibank, N.A. (Citibank) and purchased a "credit protector" plan (Plan). Under the Plan, Citibank agreed to defer or to credit certain amounts on McGill's credit card account when a qualifying event occurred, such as long-term disability, unemployment, divorce, military service, or hospitalization. Citibank charged a monthly premium for the Plan based on the amount of McGill's credit card balance.
McGill's original account agreement did not contain an arbitration provision. In October 2001, Citibank sent her a "Notice of Change in Terms Regarding Binding Arbitration to Your Citibank Card Agreement" (2001 Notice), which amended the original agreement by adding the following arbitration provisions: "Either you or we may, without the other's consent, elect mandatory, binding arbitration for any claim, dispute, or controversy between you and us (called ‘Claims')." "This arbitration provision is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (the ‘FAA’)."
The 2001 Notice stated that McGill had the option to decline the arbitration provision and to continue using her credit card under the existing terms until the "later" of "the end of [her] current membership year or the expiration date on [her] card(s)." McGill did not decline and, according to Citibank, the arbitration provision became effective on November 30, 2001.
In February 2005, Citibank sent McGill a "Notice of Change in Terms, Right to Opt Out, and Information Update" (2005 Notice), which informed her of changes to the arbitration provisions and to several other aspects of her account agreement. The 2005 Notice contained an opt-out provision similar to the opt-out provision in the 2001 Notice. Again, McGill did not opt out and continued using her credit card. In January 2007, Citibank sent McGill a complete copy of her account agreement, which included arbitration provisions identical to those quoted above.
In 2011, McGill filed this class action based on Citibank's marketing of the Plan and the handling of a claim she made under it when she lost her job in 2008. The operative complaint alleges claims under the UCL, the CLRA, and the false advertising law, as well as the Insurance Code. For relief, it requests, among other things, an injunction prohibiting Citibank from continuing to engage in its allegedly illegal and deceptive practices.
Pursuant to the arbitration provision, Citibank petitioned to compel McGill to arbitrate her claims on an individual basis. The trial court granted the petition in part and denied it in part based on Broughton and Cruz , which together established the following rule: Agreements to arbitrate claims for public injunctive relief under the CLRA, the UCL, or the false advertising law are not enforceable in California. Applying this rule—known as the Broughton-Cruz rule—the trial court ordered McGill to arbitrate all claims other than those for injunctive relief under the UCL, the false advertising law, and the CLRA. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded "for the trial court to order all of McGill's claims to arbitration," concluding that the FAA, as recently construed by the United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (Concepcion ), preempts the Broughton-Cruz rule.
During oral argument in the Court of Appeal, McGill asserted that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable because it purports to prohibit her from pursuing claims for public injunctive relief, not just in arbitration, but in any forum . The Court of Appeal did not mention this argument in its opinion. McGill made the argument again in a petition for rehearing, which the Court of Appeal denied without addressing the merits of the issue.
McGill filed a petition for review in this court, asserting (1) the Court of Appeal erred in finding FAA preemption of the Broughton-Cruz rule, and (2) the arbitration provision is invalid and unenforceable because it waives her right to seek public injunctive relief in any forum. For reasons explained below, we agree with her latter claim and we do not address the former.
We begin by summarizing the California consumer protection laws here at issue. The Legislature enacted the CLRA "to protect consumers against unfair and deceptive business practices and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure such protection." (Civ. Code, § 1760.) "[T]o promote" these purposes, the Legislature directed that the CLRA "be liberally construed and applied." (Ibid .) After setting forth a list of unlawful "methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices" (id. , § 1770), the CLRA authorizes any consumer who has been damaged by an unlawful method, act, or practice to bring an action for various forms of relief, including "[a]n order enjoining the methods, acts, or practices" (id. , § 1780, subd. (a)(2)). The CLRA also expressly declares that "[a]ny waiver by a consumer" of the CLRA's provisions "is contrary to public policy and shall be unenforceable and void." (Id. , § 1751.)
The UCL addresses "unfair competition," which "mean[s] and include [s] any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by [the false advertising law]." (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.) Its purpose "is to protect both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and services." (Kasky v. Nike , Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 949, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 45 P.3d 243.) "Actions for relief" under the UCL may be brought by various government officials and "by a person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition." (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ramirez v. Charter Comm., Inc.
...any other contract, including unconscionability. (Patterson, at p. 491, 285 Cal.Rptr.3d 420, citing McGill v Citibank, N A (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945, 961-962, 216 Cal.Rptr.3d 627, 393 P.3d 85.) Thus, it does not contravene the FAA to find that certain provisions of the Agreement are unconscionab......
-
Ramirez v. Charter Comm., Inc.
...any other contract, including unconscionability. (Patterson, at p. 491, 285 Cal.Rptr.3d 420, citing McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945, 961–962, 216 Cal.Rptr.3d 627, 393 P.3d 85.) Thus, it does not contravene the FAA to find that certain provisions of the Agreement are unconscion......
-
Chien v. Bumble Inc.
...to the extent it prevents Chien from seeking public injunctive relief. (See id. at 23-25.) See McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal.5th 945, 216 Cal. Rptr.3d 627, 393 P.3d 85, 90-93 (2017) (holding agreement to waive right to seek public injunctive relief violated California law). Both of these ......
-
Keebaugh v. Warner Bros. Entm't Inc.
...contains a "purported ban on public injunctive relief" which they say violates California law and McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal.5th 945, 216 Cal.Rptr.3d 627, 393 P.3d 85 (2017). The Terms of Service restrict the available remedies an arbitrator may award to the scope "necessary to provide......
-
California's Unfair Competition Law And Consumers Legal Remedies Act - 2023 Overview
...5th436 (2023), review granted, No. S281510 (Cal. Oct. 18, 2023) 39 See Guzman v. Polaris Indus. Inc., 49 F.4th 1308 (9th Cir. 2022). 4 2 Cal. 5th 945 41 E.g., McArdle v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 772 F. App'x 575 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied (2020); Tillage v. Comcast Corp., 772 F. App'x 569 (9th......
-
Alternative Dispute Resolution
...1012.50. Id. at p. 1010.51. Ibid.52. Id. at p. 1013 (quoting, with emphasis added, 21 U.S.T. § 2517).53. Id. at pp. 1016-1017.54. (2017) 2 Cal. 5th 945 (McGill).55. The McGill rule is not preempted because it purportedly applies to a provision in any contract—even a contract that has no arb......
-
California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Update: Substantive Law
...819 (9th Cir. 2019).27. 563 U.S. 333 (2011).28. 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.29. 61 Cal. 4th 899 (2015).30. See, e.g., McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017) (holding that the FAA does not bar action for public injunctive relief); Carlson v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc., 239 Cal.App.4th 619......
-
Recent Developments in California Competition and Privacy Law
...U.S. 333 (2011).101. 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.102. 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014).103. 61 Cal.4th 899 (2015).104. See, e.g., McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017); Carlson v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc., 239 Cal. App. 4th 619 (2015).105. See, e.g., Richard W. Novotny, Gauging the Future of Is......
-
California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Update: Substantive Law
...563 U.S. 333 (2011).33. 563 U.S. 333 (2011).34. 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.35. 61 Cal. 4th 899 (2015).36. See, e.g., McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017), infra (FAA does not bar action for public injunctive relief); Carlson v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc., 239 Cal. App. 4th 619 (2015).......