TRENTON, N.J. (Legal Newsline) - A federal judge won't fast-track an appeal by class action lawyers upset their case over knobs on LG electric and gas ranges was sent to arbitration.
New Jersey federal judge John Michael Vazquez on Aug. 8 denied their motion to certify his March opinion for interlocutory appeal, which would have been heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Their lawsuit says LG electric and gas ranges have a defect in them that causes the knobs that control burners to move when bumped, turning the burner on.
But Vazquez ruled in March that the case belonged in arbitration and not his courtroom, citing a one-year warranty that included an arbitration notice:
"THIS LIMITED WARRANTY CONTAINS AN ARBITRATION PROVISION THAT REQUIRES YOU AND LG TO RESOLVE DISPUTES BY BINDING ARBITRATION INSTEAD OF IN COURT, UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO OPT OUT. IN ARBITRATION, CLASS ACTIONS AND JURY TRIALS ARE NOT PERMITTED."
Plaintiff Pedro Brito had sought repairs to his range under the warranty before filing suit. He argued LG failed to provide consumers with notice of the arbitration agreement, rendering it unenforceable.
He said it failed under New Jersey law by failing to convey the distinction between resolving a dispute in arbitration and a judicial forum.
"The Court agrees with LG," Vazquez wrote. "The numerous references to the arbitration clause (including the in-the-box and on-the-box Arbitration Notice), and the opportunities provided to review and opt out of the agreement to arbitrate, support a finding that Plaintiff had reasonable notice of, and assented to, the provision.
"And Plaintiff’s Complaint is devoid of any allegations that provide a basis to reject the defense of arbitrability."
As for the proposed appeal, attorneys at Feldman Shepherd and Morgan & Morgan need to wait until the arbitration is final. They couldn't show that resolving the arbitration issue at the Third Circuit would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, Vazquez ruled.
"Here, Plaintiff argues that granting the petition would expedite the resolution of this matter 'by potentially preventing an arbitration that could be later rendered futile by the Third Circuit,'" Vazquez wrote.
"But the mere possibility that the court's interlocutory decision compelling arbitration could later be found incorrect is not sufficient..."
Vazquez said reversal of his arbitration ruling would not simplify case but rather begin it anew.