ID THE CASE:
E. MARTYN GRIFFEN v. ALPHA PHI ALPHA, INC. ET AL. and Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. d/b/a Psi Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity and Lionel Anderson-Perez and Kelechi Okereke
Civil Action No. 06-1735
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
PLAINTIFF = E. MARTYN GRIFFEN
DEFENDANT = ALPHA PHI ALPHA, INC. ET AL., Lionel Anderson-Perez and Kelechi Okereke
RELEVANT AND MATERIAL FACTS (LIST JUST 5 OR LESS):
1. Plaintiff E. Martyn Griffen was twenty years old and at his junior year of college at the University of Pensylvania. Mr. Griffen intended to became a member of Psi Chapter of Alpha , Inc. (Alpha Phi Alpha, Inc. ("the Fraternity") formed in 1905 at Cornell University. …show more content…
According to Mr.Griffen, the punishment was physical and with in violation of the Fraternity's rules and the University's anti-hazing policy.
4. On April 25, 2006, Mr. Griffen filed a ten-count Complaint against Anderson-Perez and Okereke, as well as Psi Chapter and the Fraternity.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY (LIST JUST 5 OR LESS):
1. April 25, 2006 Mr. Griffen filed a complaint.
2. Alpha Phi Alpha, Inc. has filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative stay litigation pending arbitration
3. united District Court for Easter District of Pennsylvania will hear this arbitration.
ISSUE: Whether the Application's arbitration clause is enforceable and whether it is applicable to the injuries Mr. Griffen claims to suffer from at the Intake process.
HOLDING:
1. The court ordered Motion to stay the instant litigation is GRANTED, and this action is stayed pending submission and disposition of the underlying dispute to contractual arbitration …show more content…
Validity and enforceability - construction of arbitration agreements are determined by reference to federal substantive law, Harris, 183 F.3d at 179 the law states "generally applicable contract defenses". ...As a defense to validity, unconscionably relieves a party from an unfair contract or from an unfair portion of a contract. Id. at 13 (citing Harris, 183 F.3d at 181)
2. Procedural Unconscionabiality - Mr.Griffin argues that the Application is procedurally unconscionable because it is an adhesive contract. A contract is procedurally unconscionable when the circumstances surrounding its formation reflect "the absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties. Witmen v. Exxon Corp., 495 Ps. 540, 434 A.2d 1222, 1228 (Pa. 1981).Contract of adhesion are characterized by this absence of choice; they are "standard form contract[s] prepared by one party, to be signed by the party in a weaker position, [usually] a consumer, who has little choice about the terms. Adhesive contract are prepared by a party with excessive power and is known as "take it or leave it". For that reason adhesion contract are