Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Joanne Sudakow, et al. v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc.
Date: 08-29-2025
Case Number: 23-CV-9658
Judge: Philip M. Halpern
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best New York Consumer Law Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best New York Commercial Litigation Lawyer Directory
Description:
New York City, New York consumer law lawyer represented the Plaintiff in a arbitration law dispute.
Joanne Sudakow contracted to purchase electricity from CleanChoice Energy, Inc. About three weeks afterwards,
CleanChoice sent a package containing a form with new dispute-resolution terms, including an arbitration provision, which Sudakow did not sign. Two years later, Sudakow sued CleanChoice for breach of contract and deceptive business practices. CleanChoice moved to compel arbitration based on the subsequent terms. The district court (Halpern, J.) denied the motion, finding that Sudakow did not have notice of the arbitration provision. On appeal, CleanChoice argues that Sudakow had inquiry notice of the subsequent terms and implicitly assented to those terms by making service payments. We reject both arguments. Sudakow lacked inquiry notice because CleanChoice failed to present the arbitration provision in a clear and conspicuous way, and a reasonable person would not have believed that submitting payments constituted assent.
Joanne Sudakow contracted to purchase electricity from CleanChoice Energy, Inc. About three weeks afterwards,
CleanChoice sent a package containing a form with new dispute-resolution terms, including an arbitration provision, which Sudakow did not sign. Two years later, Sudakow sued CleanChoice for breach of contract and deceptive business practices. CleanChoice moved to compel arbitration based on the subsequent terms. The district court (Halpern, J.) denied the motion, finding that Sudakow did not have notice of the arbitration provision. On appeal, CleanChoice argues that Sudakow had inquiry notice of the subsequent terms and implicitly assented to those terms by making service payments. We reject both arguments. Sudakow lacked inquiry notice because CleanChoice failed to present the arbitration provision in a clear and conspicuous way, and a reasonable person would not have believed that submitting payments constituted assent.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Joanne Sudakow, et al. v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc.?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard Joanne Sudakow, et al. v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc.?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York County), NY. The presiding judge was Philip M. Halpern.
Who were the attorneys in Joanne Sudakow, et al. v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc.?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best New York Consumer Law Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best New York Commercial Litigation Lawyer Directory.
When was Joanne Sudakow, et al. v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc. decided?
This case was decided on August 29, 2025.