keeping preclusion of class action matches will not make contract unconscionable
Summary for this instance from Cunningham v. Citigroup
Appeal through the Superior Court, Law Division, Union County.
Before Judges KESTIN, LEFELT and FALCONE.
Donna Siegel Moffa argued the main cause for appellant (Williams, Cuker and Berezofsky and Trujillo Rodriguez Richards, lawyers; Mark R. Cuker and Ms. Moffa, in the brief).
Marc J. Zucker argued the main cause 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, regarding 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 of this court had been delivered by
The question that is principal in this interlocutory appeal, and something that are of very very first impression in this State, is whether a mandatory arbitration supply in a quick payday loan agreement is enforceable.