In a 5-4 decision in AT&T Mobility v Concepcion, that SCOTUsblog calls "super-significant" the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act "FAA" preempts a California common-law rule that permits consumers to avoid contracts in which they have waived their class action rights.  Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "The overarching purpose of the FAA is to ensure the enforcement of arbitration agreements according to their terms so as to facilitate streamlined proceedings.  Requiring the availability of classwide arbitration interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration and creates a scheme inconsistent with the FAA." The dissent, led by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, opined that class action proceedings are necessary to prosecute small-dollar claims that might otherwise slip through the legal system.  For more information on the case, please see the following article: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/the_end_of_consumer_class_actions_supreme_court_upholds_att_arbitration_con

     Recently, the Court of Appeals begrudgingly held that the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) was immune from liability because plaintiff failed to give notice as required by statute.  On August 9, 2007, plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident with an MDOT vehicle.  Two months later, plaintiff sent a "statutory notice of claim" by certified mail to MDOT.  The notice provided details regarding the date, time, location, name of MDOT employee involved, vehicle identification number, how the accident happened, and described the injuries sustained by plaintiff.  However, plaintiff did not file a notice of intent to file a claim with the court of claims as required by MCL 600.6431

      MCL 600.6431 requires in all actions for property damage or personal injury that notice of intent to file a claim be filed with the clerk of the court of claims within 6 months of the date of injury.  Plaintiff did not file the required notice until April 15, 2008, 8 months after the August accident.

     Plaintiff argued that the notice sent directly to MDOT was sufficient to satisfy the statutes requirements; therefore, MDOT was not prejudiced by the late filing.  Constrained by recent precedent, the Court refused to read a prejudice exception into the statute and held that plaintiff was required to satisfy the strict notice requirement.  The Court of Appeals encouraged the Supreme Court to review the applicable case law, stating that it would have allowed plaintiff to proceed if it were not obligated to follow precedent.   For more information, please read the following opinion.  

Mark T. Koerner, a shareholder in The Hubbard Law Firm, P.C., has been ranked second in weekly profile views out of 1,049 lawyers in Lansing by Martindale-Hubbell.