Parm v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., No. 17-1931 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs brought a class action against Bluestem, alleging that the company engaged in unscrupulous business practices in violation of federal and state laws. The Eighth Circuit agreed with Bluestem that all of plaintiffs' claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. The court held that the agreements contained broad arbitration clauses and plaintiffs' state-law usury, state and federal financial disclosure and state-law unjust enrichment claims all fell within the scope of the arbitration agreements. Accordingly, the court remanded with directions to order arbitration on those claims.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Arbitration.In this class action alleging defendant engaged in practices which violated state and federal laws governing usury, truth-in-lending and deceptive marketing, the district court erred in determining that certain of plaintiffs' claims - regarding state-law usury, state and federal financial disclosure and state-law unjust enrichment - did not fall within the scope of the broad arbitration provisions contained in the credit agreements plaintiffs signed with defendant; reversed and remanded with directions to order arbitration on the claims.
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.