The People's Lawyer Consumer News Alert | |||
![]() |
|||
|
|||
Subscribe to the Newsletter Helpful Links Texas Consumer Complaint Center Credit Reports and Identity Theft Your Guide to Small Claims Court Contact Us 1-713-743-2168 |
The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the DayIf you’re facing eviction for any reason, there are organizations out there who can help you. But there are also fake “organizations” and “charities” who can hurt you. Click here for more. Gas prices still rising but at a slower paceThe price of gasoline moved higher again this week but at a slower pace than earlier this month. But with the sudden pick-up in demand, industry analysts say prices could increase more quickly in the months ahead. Your MoneyMarried couples have a choice to make at tax time: They can file their income-tax returns jointly or separately. Most married people automatically file joint returns, but there are some situations where filing separately can be better. "Married filing separately is an uncommon filing status, however it can be beneficial for certain legal and strategic reasons," says James A.J. Revels, a CPA and partner at KPMG in Philadelphia. Here are some reasons to file jointly or separately: Click here for more. For the LawyersNon-signatory held to arbitration agreement. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a national cable provider’s motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action alleging the company violated the FCRA by checking consumer credit reports without a permissible purpose. After the consumer filed the putative class action, the company moved to arbitrate the claims pursuant to a provision contained “in various written materials that were originally provided to [the consumer]’s household in 2006” upon the opening of a company account. In response, the consumer asserted that the arbitration provision is not binding on him, because he was not the signatory on the document that contains the provision. The court disagreed with the consumer, concluding that, even though he was a non-signatory, he “actively sought and obtained benefits provided pursuant to the Subscriber Agreement. Thus he is equitably estopped from avoiding the Arbitration Provision contained therein.” The court acknowledged the existence of the arbitration agreement was not in dispute, but whether the consumer was bound by it. The court found that, not only did the consumer obtain benefits from the household account, he also “exceris[ed] control over the account,” including placing servicing calls regarding the account. Moreover, because the claims filed by the consumer fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, as they “relate[] to [company] and/or [consumer]’s relationship with [company],” and the court granted the company’s motion to compel arbitration. Shelton v. Comcast Corporation, District Court Eastern Pennsylvania 2021 Click here for more. |
||
To stop receiving email news alerts from the Center for Consumer Law, please click here. |