keeping preclusion of class action matches will not make contract unconscionable
Overview with this full situation from Cunningham v. Citigroup
Appeal through the Superior Court, Law Division, Union County.
Before Judges KESTIN, LEFELT and FALCONE.
Donna Siegel Moffa argued the reason for appellant (Williams, Cuker and Berezofsky and Trujillo amscot loans customer service Rodriguez Richards, solicitors; Mark R. Cuker and Ms. Moffa, in the brief).
Marc J. Zucker argued the reason for the respondent County Bank (Weir Partners solicitors; Susan Verbonitz and Mr. Zucker, in the brief).
Claudia T. Callaway (Paul, Hastings, Janofsky Walker)of the District of Columbia Bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the main cause for respondent Main Street provider Corp. (Sweeney Sheehan, and Ms. Callaway, solicitors; Ms. Callaway of counsel; J. Michael Kunsch, from the brief).
Pinilis Halpern, lawyers for amicus curiae AARP Foundation and Counsel for nationwide Association of Consumer Advocates (William J. Pinilis, of counsel as well as on the brief).
The viewpoint for the court had been delivered by
The principal concern presented in this interlocutory appeal, plus one that are of very first impression in this State, is whether or not a mandatory arbitration provision in an online payday loan agreement is enforceable. a “payday loan” is a short-term, solitary re payment, unsecured customer loan, alleged because re re payment is normally due from the debtor’s next payday.
Plaintiff, Jaliyah Muhammad, contends that, since the arbitration clause is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, the test court erred in its determination that the clause ended up being enforceable. She further contends that the test court should have allowed development prior to making its dedication that the arbitration clause is enforceable.