Hyundai pushed the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday to resurrect its effort to force arbitration in a lawsuit alleging dangerous defects in its Palisade SUVs, arguing a district court ruling rejecting the arbitration clause showed “disdain for arbitration” and misapplied the law. The appeal, framed as a battle over consumer fairness and corporate overreach, unfolded with the energy of a courtroom drama.
Hyundai Says Judge Ignored Clear Delegation Clause
Representing Hyundai Motor America Inc., attorney Theodore Boutrous of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP insisted that the lower court improperly brushed aside an arbitration agreement embedded in the contract for Hyundai’s complimentary Bluelink connected-services app.
Boutrous maintained that the agreement clearly delegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
“The case should be compelled to arbitration,” he told the appellate panel, calling the district judge’s order “dripping with disdain for arbitration.”
But the district court had ruled the provision unconscionable, finding the delegation clause unclear and noting that class-action issues were expressly reserved for the court.
