Discover Bank v. Superior Court

<html> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <title>Filed 12/7/05</title> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> Filed 12/7/05 (on remand from Cal. Supreme Court) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style='border-collapse:collapse'> <tr> <td width=336 valign=top style='width:3.5in;border-top:none;border-left:none; border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> DISCOVER BANK, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; CHRISTOPHER BOEHR, Real Party in Interest. </td> <td width=336 valign=top style='width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> No. B161305 (Super. Ct. No. BC 256167) (Carolyn Kuhl, Judge) </td> </tr> </table> ORIGINAL PROCEEDING<a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">; petition for a writ of mandate.</a> Granted. ________ Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, Julia B. Strickland, Scott M. Pearson and Stephen J. Newman; Kirkland & Ellis, Jeffrey S. Davidson, Rich Richmond, C. Robert Boldt and Amy M. Wilkins for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Strange & Carpenter, <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Brian R. Strange and Gretchen Carpenter</a>; Law Offices of Barry L. Kramer and Barry L. Kramer; Trial Lawyers for Public Justice and Victoria W. Ni for Real Party in Interest. ________ This case is before us on remand from the California Supreme Court. We are to decide whether a contractual choice-of-law provision should be respected in determining the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">enforceability</a> of a class action waiver in the contract between plaintiff Christopher Boehr and defendant Discover Bank where plaintiff alleges no violations of California substantive law and sues on behalf of a putative nationwide class. We conclude that the parties' choice of Delaware law should be respected, and that under Delaware law the class action waiver is enforceable. We therefore grant Discover Bank's <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">petition.</a> BACKGROUND The factual and procedural background is amply <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">summarized in the opinion</a> of the Supreme Court. In brief: Boehr, a California resident, obtained a credit card from Discover Bank in 1986. Discover Bank is domiciled in Delaware, and the cardholder agreement contained a choice-of-law clause providing for the application of Delaware and federal law. In 1999, Discover Bank amended the cardholder agreement by adding an arbitration clause that prohibited both parties to the agreement from participating in classwide arbitration, consolidating claims, or arbitrating claims as a representative or in a private attorney general capacity. (Discover Bank v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 148, 152-153.) In 2001, Boehr filed a putative nationwide class action against Discover Bank in <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">the superior court</a>, alleging claims for breach of contract and violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. He alleged that Discover Bank had breached the cardholder agreement by imposing late fees and finance charges on payments that were received on the payment due date but after Discover Bank's undisclosed 1:00 p.m. deadline. Boehr conceded in his complaint that, because of the choice-of-law provision, Delaware law would govern his â€