4 ms·
In cases where the arbitration clause is already in place, and the arbitrations have been filed, that would likely be difficult to do, as a result of the Alsup
by g_p 7y ago
In cases where the arbitration clause is already in place, and the arbitrations have been filed, that would likely be difficult to do, as a result of the Alsup ruling.
Where the arbitrations haven't begun yet, there's certainly some scope for attempting to neutralize this, by changing provider or terms. Interestingly, there's a potential conflict-of-interest brewing [1] around whether DoorDash's lawyers were so tightly involved in the writing of the CPR's rules, that the CPR sought their approval before publishing them [2]...
If that is the case, things could start to get quite interesting indeed, particularly for CPR, who are not looking in a particularly good light after discovery in the case.
> The documents in the case were unsealed on Wednesday, revealing that the defendants were so involved in the protocol that CPR would not publish it until DoorDash and its lawyers gave the go ahead, including a sign off on the fee structure by DoorDash’s head of litigation, Gregg Farano. In his written approval of the Protocol in an Oct. 31 email to Waxman, Farano asked that CPR let him know when the new rules were published “so that we may link to it in our terms and conditions.”
Alsup certainly seems to think there's something worth the public knowing about here [3]:
> Judge Alsup also said the public deserves to see the CPR emails, since the material “would be useful to the public in evaluating the true extent to which (CPR) is impartial.”
[1] https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/12/20/gibson-dunn-doordashs-ties-to-new-mass-arbitration-protocol-can-be-explored-judge-says/ https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/12/20/gibson-dunn-doord...
[2] https://prospect.org/labor/doordash-company-arbitration-storm-workers/ https://prospect.org/labor/doordash-company-arbitration-stor...
[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-otc-mass-arbi-lawsuits-idUSKCN20M00Z https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-otc-mass-arbi-lawsu...
- Paul-ish 7y agoAlso the way cases will be brought seems like it would create perverse incentives on the rulings. > The International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution, or C.P.R., was willing to allow DoorDash to arbitrate “test cases” and avoid having to pay the fees all at once. C.P.R. also took feedback from Gibson Dunn on the proposed new rules, though it did not consult with the dashers’ lawyers.
- g_p 7y ago> Also the way cases will be brought seems like it would create perverse incentives on the rulings. > > The International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution, or C.P.R., was willing to allow DoorDash to arbitrate “test cases” and avoid having to pay the fees all at once. C.P.R. also took feedback from Gibson Dunn on the proposed new rules, though it did not consult with the dashers’ lawyers. Very much so! And this seems to be why Alsup wanted the discovery documents made public, so people could draw their own conclusions on the lack of independence of the CPR. I must confess I don't like the whole model of arbitration, as it feels full of perverse incentives to begin with - an arbitrator gets selected, so one that finds against the big company too often won't be getting much work!