Kiana Jones was claimant in one of more than 7,000 arbitration filings on the same or similar claims. JAMS requested briefs on whether the arbitration filings should be consolidated. Jones opposed and Starz favored consolidation. The matters were consolidated before a single arbitrator. Claimants consecutively disqualified each arbitrator and the matters could not proceed. Jones declined to petition the California Supreme Court to have an arbitrator appointed. Instead, she filed a petition to compel Starz to arbitrate on an individual basis pursuant to her reading of the arbitration agreement. The District Court held that Starz had fully complied with its obligations to arbitrate and that consolidation of claims did not contradict the terms of the agreement. Jones appealed.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed and held that Jones was not “aggrieved” under Section 4 of the FAA because JAMS’ decision to consolidate did not constitute a refusal of Starz to arbitrate. In relevant part, the Court held:
The Terms never used the phrase “individual arbitration” or expressly prohibited consolidation. See, e.g., Heckman v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., 120 F.4th 670, 683 (9th Cir. 2024) (noting that arbitration clause specifically required resolution of claims by “individual arbitration”). Rather than prohibit consolidation, the agreement between Starz and Jones plainly contemplated its possibility by incorporating the JAMS Rules, including the Rule that authorizes JAMS to consolidate filings that share common issues of fact or law.
Consolidation is not the same as class or representative arbitration. Some similarities exist in that both procedures encompass multiple disputes and heighten the commercial stakes. There is a critical difference, however. In a class or representative arbitration, an individual brings claims on behalf of others, whereas a claimant in a consolidated arbitration brings the claim in her individual capacity. It is that representative feature, not the mere numerosity of parties, that forms the critical element of the “fundamental changes brought about by the shift from bilateral arbitration to class-action arbitration.” Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 686, 130 S.Ct. 1758, 176 L.Ed.2d 605 (2010).
Jones v. Starz Ent., LLC, No. 24-1645, 2025 WL 649705 (9th Cir. Feb. 28, 2025).
