Ross et al v. American Express Company et al, No. 1:2004cv05723 - Document 366 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: These actions are the latest installment in multidistrict litigation that spanned more than a decade and raised a spate of novel issues. They offer a cautionary lesson to all lawyers who labor under inexorable pressure to generate new business. When outside counsel convene meetings of competitors in the hope of propelling themselves to the forefront of an emerging trend-in this case, class-action-barring consumer arbitration agreements-they do so at their professional peril. When the first meeting convened, only two defendants had class-action-barring arbitration clauses in their card member agreements. By the time the last meeting concluded, all ten of the Issuing Banks, accounting for approximately 87% of all cred it card transactions in the United States, had adopted class-action-barring arbitration clauses in their card member agreements. It was only by a slender reed that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the lawyers who organized these meetings had spa wned a Sherman Act conspiracy among their clients. In retrospect, the Issuing Banks' short-term goal of lowering litigation costs eluded them. Undoubtedly, retaining some of the most esteemed antitrust lawyers in the nation to counter the extrao rdinary talents of Plaintiffs' counsel imposed a significant burden on the Issuing Banks. Only the passage of time will reveal whether the Issuing Banks' longer-term goal of avoiding the expense of class action lawsuits can be achieved. Fo r the foregoing reasons, this Court grants judgment to the Defendants dismissing Plaintiffs' antitrust claims in this action for injunctive relief invalidating the class-action-barring arbitration clauses. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 4/10/2014) (mro)