Wrongful Arbitration

Searching for Arbitration Victims in California

nospam@example.com (Steve) — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:59:14 -0700

We are launching a search for any eyewitness to Wrongful Arbitration. Characteristics:

California resident

National Arbitration Forum executed an 'Award' against you

The arbitration award winner was MBNA or FIA Card Services

The Resurrection of Career: Mann Bracken Lawyers Start Operations

nospam@example.com (Steve) — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:48:11 -0700

Members of the infamous Mann Bracken have started a new law firm to resurrect their careers. Like the now-defunct Mann Bracken, the lawyers will specialize in collection. Kramer, Meggison & Taylor LLC and has offices in Rockville and Atlanta.

http://mddailyrecord.com/2010/06/20/ex-mann-bracken-lawyers-form-firm/

At http://www.lawyers.com/Georgia/Atlanta/Kramer-Meggison-and-Taylor-LLC-43245553-f.html, the Atlanta office received a rating of 5 from none other than W. Christopher Bracken, III. (of course, good ratings must be kept up!)

National Arbitration Forum 'tainted with illegality'

nospam@example.com (Steve) — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 06:26:23 -0700

This California case is Bailey v Processing Solutions. It's a very interesting angle regarding the so-called rules at the NAF

The arbitration agreement at issue here, like the one in Armendariz, is tainted with illegality. As we have already discussed, the class action waiver provision is unconscionable as contrary to public policy. (Discover Bank, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 162-163.) Also troubling is the provision in the arbitration agreement stating that disputes shall be governed by "the Code of Procedure of the National Arbitration Forum ("NAF") in effect at the time the claim is filed." However, the arbitration agreement did not include the NAF rules, it merely listed a web address (but did not provide a link to that address) and a physical address where plaintiff could obtain a copy of the NAF rules. However, even if plaintiff obtained a copy of the NAF rules in that way, the rules could have changed by the time any dispute arose. Thus, this provision, as drafted, provided plaintiff with no real notice at the time it was executed of what rules were actually being incorporated into the agreement. Rather, the provision merely specified that whatever NAF rules were current when the dispute arose would be enforced. The court in in Harper v. Ultimo, supra, found a similar provision oppressive because it "pegs both the scope and procedure of the arbitration to rules which might change". (Harper v. Ultimo, supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at p. 1407.)
Read the whole slip opinion here

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100527025