Smith v. JEM Group, Inc., No. 11-35964 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed a class action complaint against JEM, a "back-end" debt-relief company, and others, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, and breach of Washington consumer protection statutes. On appeal, JEM appealed from the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded that the district court correctly decided that it, rather than an arbitrator, should decide whether the arbitration clause in the attorney retainer agreement was unconscionable. The court also concluded that the district court properly decided, using non-preempted Washington law, that the arbitration clause was unenforceable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Arbitration. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration arising from an arbitration clause in an attorney retainer agreement. The panel held that the district court correctly decided that it, rather than an arbitrator, should decide whether the arbitration clause in the attorney retainer agreement was unconscionable. The panel also held that the district court properly concluded, using non-preempted Washington law, that the arbitration clause was unenforceable.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.