Mafia Should Have Used Binding Class Action Waivers

Sep 18 2018

“Payday loans” are a modern device intended to avoid interest rate regulations and financial disclosure laws.  So-called “salary lenders” who engage in these predatory loan arrangements concentrate on low-income families who live paycheck-to-paycheck.  To circumvent state consumer protection legislation, they partner with obscure national banks which are not subject to state law.  People who receive the “payday loans” are usually both desperate and unsophisticated.  Charlene Jenkins was a good example.  Between June 7, 2002, and September 6, 2002, she received eight loans, each for under $500, from First American Cash Advance of Georgia.  If a dispute arose, she agreed to arbitrate, and of course she “agreed” not to “serve as a representative, as a private attorney general, or in any other representative capacity… or… participate as a member of a class.”  To nail it down completely she “agreed” that “the arbitrator shall not conduct class arbitration.”  First American included in these “agreements,” as a co-participant, the First National Bank in Brookings.  Brookings, Georgia?  No way.  Brookings is not in Georgia, not even near Georgia, but in South Dakota.  Naturally, Ms. Jenkins’ eight separate promissory notes were all governed by South Dakota law.

By teaming up with this genuinely obscure national bank, First American charged annual percentage rates between 438% to 939%.  By teaming up with an arbitration agency, First American figured it would avoid class actions.  In fact, without class relief, First American might be lucky enough to avoid litigation altogether, because of the difficulty that a poor person like Ms. Jenkins would have finding an attorney to represent her in an individual capacity only.

The Chief Judge of the Georgia court, however, concluded that “enforcing the arbitration clause… against the payday consumers would lead to an unjust result.”  When First American moved for reconsideration, Judge Bowen highlighted the invaluable assistance that “unconscionable mandatory arbitration agreements” offered “to circumvent state laws [and] enable stronger parties to force weaker parties into binding arbitration.”

Judge Bowen probably believed his decision would be affirmed in a heartbeat.  Maybe, like me, he thought it was only the Mafia who charged interest rates of 900% or so.  The Mafia’s big mistake was to threaten physical violence if the borrower didn’t pay on time.  All it really needed was a bit of interstate commerce to get federal jurisdiction, and a mandatory arbitration clause waiving class actions.  Now, Mafia Cash Advance Services would be well protected.

Judge Bowen’s decision was reversed.  Now, class actions can be precluded, because under the state RICO statute attorney’s fees are recoverable.  Supposedly, that would make Ms. Jenkins’ individual case an attractive proposition.  Just think, for example, of all the civil RICO cases that have been brought in Connecticut!  Why, with only a couple of years of discovery, Ms. Jenkins’ $1,000 usurious interest recovery could be proved to be a product of racketeering, and therefore Ms. Jenkins can vindicate all her individual substantive rights.  That is if the arbitrator in his or her discretion will award the hugely disproportionate attorney’s fees required to obtain the evidence to prove a RICO violation.  At any rate, since arbitration is generally confidential, we will never know.

If the Mafia is not smart enough to get the case into federal court, however, there was some hope.  Florida’s Supreme Court decided that Mr. John Cardegna could bring a class action against Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. because the contract containing the mandatory arbitration clause was illegal and therefore void from the beginning.  The same kind of financial scheme was at issue.  Florida’s Supreme Court correctly put the horse before the cart in deciding that a court first had to determine whether the usury laws were violated, because otherwise it would “breathe life into a contract that not only violates state law, but is also criminal in nature, by use of an arbitration provision.  This would lead to an absurd result.  Legal authorities from the earliest time had unanimously held that no court will lend its assistance in any way towards carrying out the terms of an illegal contract.  Illegal promises will not be enforced in cases controlled by federal law.”  No contract, no arbitration clause.  No public policy exists, in Florida anyway, to let an arbitration clause subvert the usury laws.

The Mafia will be closely watching continued developments.

Share this Post

Class Action Mafia

About the Author

Joseph D. Garrison

Joseph D. Garrison

Since founding Garrison, Levin-Epstein in 1977, Joe Garrison has become the leading employment lawyer in Connecticut and one of the most prominent employee rights advocates in the United States. Learn More

You deserve justice. We are here to fight for you.

Let Us Review Your Case

We will respond to your message promptly. Although we will keep your message strictly confidential, please note that contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Client Experiences

During a very difficult employment situation, I was referred to Joe Garrison. Recognizing the volatile and time sensitive nature of my employment situation, Mr. Garrison met with me immediately (on the weekend no less). He listened to the details of my case, was able to think through possible creative solutions to offer the employer, and was responsive to my myriad of questions. He understood my concerns about litigation versus settlement, and he worked to find the best resolution possible. I am grateful to have had his support at a very difficult time. —J.C., New Haven, CT

Ethan Levin-Epstein represented me during a most painful and challenging crisis in my personal and professional life. Seeing me within 24 hours of being referred, his support and advocacy, wisdom and clarity not only resulted in a favorable negotiated outcome for me and for my family, but gave me peace of mind and the courage to recover. I am very grateful to have met Ethan and his team and would refer anyone in need to this haven. — C.L., Guilford, CT

You will never meet a more knowledgeable and compassionate professional than Steve Fitzgerald. My employment situation was very complex, and Attorney Fitzgerald kept me focused while remaining extremely adept and “thinking on his feet.” Should the need present itself again, I would never seek anyone else’s counsel regarding employment issues. I cannot recommend him highly enough. — J.R., New Haven, CT

Nina Pirrotti provided outstanding legal advice and was trustworthy, dependable, and responsive. From the start, I was confident that her knowledge and experience would obtain favorable results. On a more personal note, I enjoyed working with her and her staff and felt I was included in every part of the process. The dedication, concern, and interest in me as a client was greatly appreciated, and Nina has earned my highest recommendation. — J.H., Monroe, CT

I recently found myself in need of a lawyer in handling a dispute with my former employer. I was fortunate to retain Josh Goodbaum as my legal counsel. His legal skills knowledge and professionalism shone through in every step of the process resulting in a very positive result. I highly recommend Josh if you find yourself in need of legal counsel. — S.R., Guilford, CT

When I go to a lawyer for advice, I am usually anxious, particularly the first meeting. Amanda DeMatteis was clear in describing my options and immediately set me at ease. Realistic assessment is important, and Amanda was clear as to how to set up the case and the direction she felt we should go. I had total confidence in her abilities and knew I was being well represented against a large corporation. More importantly, we were successful! —N.M., Haddam, CT

Proven Results & Personalized Attention When You Need It Most

American Law Institute Super Lawyers American College of Trial Lawyers Best Lawyers The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers
Back to Top