Emory v. Thag, LLC

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Cali Alyson Emory, individually and in a representative
capacity for all others similarly situated, Appellant,
v.
Thag, LLC d/b/a Myrtle Beach Mitsubishi, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2017-000142
Appeal From Horry County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-083
Submitted January 1, 2018 – Filed February 14, 2018
AFFIRMED
Lawrence Sidney Connor, IV, of Kelaher Connell &
Connor, PC, of Surfside Beach, for Appellant.
James Y. Becker and Mary M. Caskey, both of
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, PA, of Columbia; and Sarah
Patrick Spruill, of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, PA, of
Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 352 (2011) (holding
state law is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) when it "stands as an
obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives
of Congress" (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941))); York v.
Dodgeland of Columbia, Inc., 406 S.C. 67, 93-94, 749 S.E.2d 139, 153 (Ct. App.
2013) ("[P]rovisions banning class arbitration . . . cannot be invalidated based upon
public policy considerations embodied within state law. Rather, the 'arbitration
clause[s] at issue . . . must be enforced according to [their] terms, which requires
individual arbitration and forecloses class arbitration.'" (third and fifth alterations
by court) (quoting Litman v. Cellco P'ship, 655 F.2d 225, 231 (3rd Cir. 2011)));
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 687 (2010) ("We think
that the differences between bilateral and class-action arbitration are too great for
arbitrators to presume, consistent with their limited powers under the FAA, that the
parties' mere silence on the issue of class arbitration constitutes consent to resolve
their disputes in class proceedings."); Holden v. Alice Mfg. Inc., 317 S.C. 215, 220,
452 S.E.2d 628, 631 (Ct. App. 1994) ("When a court construes . . . any contract,
resort is first made to the language of the contract in issue, and if the language is
perfectly plain and capable of legal construction, it determines the rights and
obligations of the parties.").
AFFIRMED.1
SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.