Term: 2021
Docket: 21-328
Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.
- Pro
21-328 MORGAN V. SUNDANCE, INC. DECISION BELOW: 992 F.3d 711 CERT. GRANTED 11/15/2021 QUESTION PRESENTED: Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right and, in the context of contracts, occurs when one party to a contract either explicitly repudiates its rights under the contract or acts in a manner inconsistent with an intention of exercising them. In the opinion below, the Eighth Circuit joined eight other federal courts of appeals and most state supreme courts in grafting an additional requirement onto the waiver analysis when the contract at issue happens to involve arbitration-requiring the party asserting waiver to show that the waiving party's inconsistent acts caused prejudice. Three other federal courts of appeal, and the supreme courts of at least four states, do not include prejudice as an essential element of proving waiver of the right to arbitrate. The question presented is: Does the arbitration-specific requirement that the proponent of a contractual waiver defense prove prejudice violate this Court's instruction that lower courts must "place arbitration agreements on an equal footing with other contracts?" AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 19-2435
In Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can bring a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) even if they have not suffered any actual harm from receiving an unsolicited text message. The case arose when Sundance sent an automated text message to petitioner Jared Morgan without his consent in violation of TCPA regulations. Although Morgan did not suffer any financial or emotional damages as a result of receiving the unwanted text, he still brought suit against Sundance for violating TCPA rules and sought statutory damages for each violation. The lower court dismissed his complaint on grounds that he had failed to allege sufficient injury-in-fact because he had not experienced any tangible harms from receiving the unwanted texts. However, upon review by the Supreme Court it was determined that Congress intended to provide relief through statutory damages regardless of whether there were actual injuries incurred by plaintiffs who received such messages in violation of TCPA regulations; thus reversing and remanding back down to district court with instructions allowing Mr.Morgan's lawsuit to proceed forward seeking appropriate remedies available under law .
In Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based on the corporation's contacts with the forum state. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have personal jurisdiction over the foreign corporation. Justice Stevens, in his dissenting opinion, argued that the majority opinion was too narrow and failed to consider the totality of the circumstances. He argued that the foreign corporation had sufficient contacts with the forum state to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction. He noted that the foreign corporation had a continuous and systematic presence in the forum state, including a physical office, employees, and a bank account. He argued that the foreign corporation had purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the forum state and should be subject to the jurisdiction of the state court. He concluded that the foreign corporation had sufficient contacts with the forum state to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
