Plaintiffs who sued Ticketmaster and Live Nation alleging violations of the Sherman Act have moved the court for an order authorizing them to pursue discovery related to whether a valid arbitration agreement exists.
Skot Heckman, Luis Ponce, Jeanene Popp, and Jacob Robert filed their original complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in January.
“What's really at stake, in this particular lawsuit, is the plaintiffs have alleged that the arbitration system they are now having to go through is unfair as compared to the previous arbitration system or the court itself,” said Albert Hughes III, an attorney in Orange County.
A similar lawsuit filed two years ago by the same plaintiffs’ attorneys, Quinn Emanuel and Keller Lenkner law firms, was relegated to Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS), according to media reports.
“The previous rulings that shifted the lawsuit from the court to arbitration might again cause this lawsuit to be ruled in the same way," Hughes told the Southern California Record. “It’s difficult or rather impossible for consumers to pursue a class-action lawsuit if they're forced to go this arbitration route.”
U.S. District Judge George Wu decided last year in Mitch Oberstein, et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al that ticket buyers are required to resolve their claims in arbitration due to the agreements attached to the tickets they purchase online.
“At the outset of this action, the Court noted that Plaintiffs would be fighting an uphill climb because this Court and others, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, have compelled arbitration of claims against either Ticketmaster or Live Nation based on the very same websites as involved herein,” Wu wrote in his Sept. 20, 2021 order on Live Nation’s motion to compel arbitration.
The new lawsuit alleges that using New Era in ADR instead of JAMS is unfair because the defendants pay New Era a retainer through a subscription service.
“What's different as has been alleged in the complaint is this New Era ADR and whether the plaintiffs win depends on how well counsel argues whether this new arbitration system is a fair process,” Hughes added.
The plaintiffs call into question New Era’s validity and impartiality in their motion for discovery related to whether a valid arbitration exists.
“New Era enters reciprocal arrangements with businesses including Defendants, taking annual retainer fees from them and providing a friendly forum to them,” wrote Plaintiffs' attorney Kevin Y. Teruya. “As set forth below, New Era received a payment of up to $350,000 from Defendants in 2021 pursuant to a financial agreement between Defendants and New Era that Defendants have refused to produce; that payment appears to have been most if not all of New Era’s revenue in 2021.”
A hearing is set for May 19 at 8:30 a.m.