The Current State of the Holder Rule: Friend or Foe? — Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast
Recent Developments in California's Arbitration Landscape — FCRA Focus Podcast
Lemon Law Shakeup: Rodriguez vs. FCA US Has Unexpected Result – Moving The Metal Podcast
California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated (Podcast)
California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated
This Am Law 50 senior counsel cements his authority through two appellate analytics blogs - Legally Contented Podcast
California Employment News: Premium Pay Constitutes Wages
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts Update, Breaking News from California
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts in Michigan and California Pose Challenges for Background Checks
The California Supreme Court’s decision in Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. resolves a growing split among the lower courts over whether tiny, hard‑to‑read print in an arbitration agreement counts as procedural...more
When Confidentiality Clauses Undermine Arbitration Agreements - In Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc., --- P.3d --- (Cal. Feb. 2, 2026), the California Supreme Court issued an important decision for employers who seek to...more
The California Supreme Court (the “Court”) has confirmed that an arbitration agreement’s formatting—standing alone—does not render its terms substantively unconscionable, even where the text is difficult to read.1 The Court...more
In Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc., the California Supreme Court recently issued an opinion calling on courts to “closely scrutinize” arbitration agreements for substantive unconscionability where there is extreme procedural...more
The California Supreme Court held that illegibility and tiny font are matters of procedural, not substantive, unconscionability. However, courts must closely scrutinize the terms of hard-to-read agreements for unfairness, and...more
In employment cases, Plaintiff’s claim that arbitration agreements with small or blurry print should not be enforced as substantively and procedurally unconscionable due to the difficulty in reading the words in the contract....more
The California Supreme Court held in Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. (Feb. 2, 2026) that small or blurry print in an arbitration agreement does not automatically invalidate the agreement as unconscionable. Instead, the Court...more
In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that Section 1281.98 of the California Arbitration Act (CAA) is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Section 12.81.98 provides that if a party...more
Hohenshelt v. Golden State Foods Corp., 18 Cal. 5th 310 (2025) - In this closely watched case, the California Supreme Court held that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98 — a do-or-die statute requiring...more
In Leeper v. Shipt, the California Supreme Court will revisit the ongoing question of whether, and to what extent, employees can pursue litigation in court for violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA),...more
I have some good news for California employers seeking to enforce arbitration agreements. The California Supreme Court just held that non-payment of arbitration fees does not automatically waive the right to arbitrate....more
On August 11, 2025, the Supreme Court of California ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt a state statute requiring employers to timely pay arbitration fees or forfeit the right to arbitration. The...more
The California Supreme Court recently held in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt a California law that penalizes businesses that have consumer and employee arbitration...more
Background: The Thirty-Day Arbitration Fee Rule - In 2019, the California legislature amended the California Arbitration Act (CAA) to require the party who drafts an arbitration agreement to pay all required arbitration...more
We have seen a rise in employees going on the offensive and suing their former employers for damages for not informing them that their noncompete is invalid under the applicable state law or for exaggerating the scope of a...more
In 2003, the California Supreme Court adopted a stringent test to determine whether an employer had waived its right to compel arbitration of an employee’s claims. The most critical, and often determinative, factor was...more
In August 2000, the California Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling that changed the face of employment arbitration agreements going forward. That case, known as Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services,...more
In a recent decision, the California Supreme Court held that courts cannot refuse to enforce arbitration agreements simply by finding that three or more provisions are unconscionable. Rather, courts must use a three-prong...more
On Jan. 1, new legislation aimed at curbing the use of unenforceable noncompete agreements took effect in California. The new laws, which impose potentially harsh consequences on employers for requiring employees to sign...more
California law has for many years treated agreements that restrain one from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business as void and unenforceable, unless an exception applies. This applies to most non-compete and...more
For decades, California has taken arguably the most pro-employee-mobility position on noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements in the country – generally, post-employment noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements...more
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, employers have been implementing and enforcing arbitration agreements requiring employees to arbitrate their individual Private Attorneys’ General...more
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573. Wage and hour practitioners, particularly in California, have watched the case with keen interest because it...more
In 1995, the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff pursuing a claim for interference with a prospective contractual or economic relationship had to plead that the defendant's conduct was wrongful. Della Penna v....more
Called upon by the Ninth Circuit in Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. to answer two key questions concerning the validity of a settlement provision requiring a party’s termination of a collaboration agreement with a...more