Pendergast v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 09-10612

In an appeal from the grant of defendant's motion to compel arbitration in a class action against Sprint Nextel Corp. for allegedly charging improper roaming fees for calls placed within Sprint's coverage areas, the court of appeals certifies the following questions to the Florida Supreme Court:  1) must Florida courts evaluate both procedural and substantive unconscionability simultaneously in a balancing or sliding scale approach, or may courts consider either procedural or substantive unconscionability independently and conclude their analysis if either one is lacking?;  2) is the class action waiver provision in plaintiff's contract with Sprint procedurally unconscionable under Florida law?  3) is the class action waiver provision in plaintiff's contract with Sprint substantively unconscionable under Florida law?; and 4) is the class action waiver provision in plaintiff's contract with Sprint void under Florida law for any other reason?

Read Pendergast v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 09-10612

Appellate Information

Filed January 4, 2010

Judges

Opinion by Judge Hull