Selby v. Cingular Wireless
Plaintiff Amanda Selby appeals from a judgment entered after defendant Cingular Wireless (Cingular) made a successful motion for judgment on the pleadings. Selby’s lawsuit is for injunctive relief only; it is based on the theory seven provisions of Cingular’s customer agreement violate California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CRLA), Civil Code sections 1750-1784.[1] However none of the provisions Selby claims violate the CRLA have ever been enforced against her – with one exception. Under Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 634 (Meyer), unless a plaintiff has suffered some “damage†from the enforcement of a contract provision which allegedly violates the CRLA, the plaintiff has no standing to pursue a claim based on the theory the contract provision violates the CRLA.
The one exception complicates this case. Back in 2005, about six years before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (Concepcion), Cingular filed a motion to compel arbitration of Selby’s claims. The motion was ultimately unsuccessful, because California law at the time was clear a suit for injunctive relief only under the CRLA was immune from contractual arbitration provisions. (See Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1066 (Broughton).) In the process of opposing the motion to compel, Selby may have incurred liability for about $25,000 in attorney fees.
Comments on Selby v. Cingular Wireless