In Re Cotton Yarn Antitrust Litigation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, “if the district court concludes that the [provision] is unenforceable, the district court must then consider whether severance of the . . . provisions, rather than invalidation of the arbitration agreements, would be the appropriate remedy.”
• explaining that “[c]ourts have frequently found contractual limitations periods of one year (or less) to be reasonable”
• noting that the complaint would be timely “so long as plaintiffs made a purchase from the Defendants within [the limitations period]”
• emphasizing that the relevant limitations period was enacted “more than forty years after the original substantive liabilities were established” (quotation marks removed)
• considering whether the federal statute at issue was best read to “prevent parties from agreeing contractually to a shortened limitations provision”
• \[Claimant] has not adequately demonstrated why arbitration under the AAA rules would deny it a fair opportunity to present its claims.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).