.
.

Get Connected

Sign up for our free e-lerts with the latest news:

.
.

Public Interest Database

Our one-of-a-kind database will help connect you to more than 2,000 public interest groups, lawyers' associations, law schools, and online legal resources throughout the U.S.

Search The Database
.

Submit A Case

Public Justice handles only cases that will make a difference in the public interest.

Submit A Case`
.

Cases

Schnuerle, et al. v. Insight Communications Company, L.P. and Insight Communications Midwest, LLC

Public Justice is co-counsel in this challenge to the enforceability of a class action ban in an internet provider's contract, on behalf of a putative class of Kentucky consumers.  Public Justice's Leslie Bailey, Paul Bland, and Melanie Hirsch are working with Louisville's Phillip Grossman and Jennifer Moore on the appeal before the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Briefs and Documents for the Schnuerle Case

Appellants’ Supplemental Authority Brief, arguing that Concepcion does not mandate that the defendant’s class action ban be held enforceable in this case because Concepcion does not change the law requiring that plaintiffs must be able to vindicate their rights in arbitration, and the evidentiary record in this case demonstrates that enforcing the defendant’s ban would effectively prevent the plaintiffs here from effectively vindicating their rights. (November 16, 2011)

Response to Insight’s supplemental authority brief, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court’s order granting certiorari, vacating, and remanding three decisions for reconsideration in light of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion does not mean the Court overruled those decisions  (Kentucky Supreme Court, June 2, 2011)

Supplemental brief to Kentucky Supreme Court filed after defendants’ motion for reconsideration, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in ATT Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893 (Apr. 27, 2011), does not affect the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision in this case.  (May 9, 2011)

Kentucky Supreme Court Decision (December 16, 2010)

Appellants' Reply Brief and Response to Cross-Appeal (February 12, 2010)

Amicus Brief, Kentucky Attorney General (Nov. 3, 2009)

Amicus Brief, Kentucky Association of Justice (Nov. 3 2009)

Amicus Brief, AARP (Nov. 3, 2009)

Appellants' Opening Brief to the Kentucky Supreme Court arguing that a class action ban and secrecy clause are unconscionable and unenforceable under Kentucky law (Kentucky Supreme Court, Case No. 2008-SC-00789-D, Oct. 16, 2009).

Motion for Discretionary Review arguing that the court should grant review and reverse the court of appeals' decision enforcing Insight's class action ban (Kentucky Supreme Court, Oct. 24, 2008)

Appellants' Opening Brief challenging a contract term banning class actions embedded in a cable company's arbitration clause, in a case where consumers of broadband internet service allege breach of contract and consumer protection claims (Kentucky Court of Appeals, Case No. 06-CI-04267, May 24, 2007). 

 

.
National Headquarters: 1825 K Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006 | ph: 202-797-8600 | fax: 202-232-7203
West Coast Office: 555 12th Street, Suite 1230, Oakland, CA 94607 | ph: 510-622-8150 | fax: 510-622-8155