On July 17, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (Cal. Sup. Ct. Case No. S274671), in which it addressed whether a plaintiff who is compelled to arbitrate their individual...more
Case Overview - On June 15, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573. The Court held that the rule from Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles,...more
On June 15, 2022, in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573,_ U.S. _ (2022), by an 8-1 majority, the U.S. States Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts the California Supreme...more
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana will dramatically impact employers’ rights to enforce arbitration agreements related to claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act...more
Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana. The decision addresses the apparent conflict between the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and California’s...more
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573, regarding California’s ban on Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) representative waivers...more
On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, which considered whether or not claims brought under the California Private Attorneys General Act...more
In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide later this term whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a California rule, established in Iskanian v. CLS...more
In a major turn of events for California employers, on December 15, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case that challenges California’s ban on arbitration agreements that limit employees’ right to sue their...more
Generally, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) has routinely been enforced by the balance of the nation’s courts over the years, as it codifies accepted deference to parties’ contracts and agreements and has been held to...more
In a much-awaited decision, the Supreme Court of the United States indicated that it would consider whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California’s rule prohibiting arbitration of Private Attorneys General...more
Last Friday, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear cases from the 9th, 7th, and 5th Circuits in which the courts are split on the issue whether class action waivers in employee arbitration agreements violate Section 7 of the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued another opinion affirming the broad scope of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and its impact on state efforts to invalidate class action waivers in arbitration agreements. Although the...more
As discussed by our Consumer Class Defense Blog, this week’s Supreme Court decision in DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia reversed a California Court of Appeal that had applied the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act’s prohibition...more
In Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., the Ninth Circuit affirmed the California Supreme Court’s Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC decision (originally summarized in our June 2012 issue), which held...more
On June 25, 2012 and July 7, 2014, we reported on the issue of waiver of representative claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation of Los Angeles, LLC, the...more
The Ninth Circuit Decision - Delivering a perhaps unexpected blow to employers, the Ninth Circuit sided with the California Supreme Court earlier this week in upholding the state-court-fashioned Iskanian rule, which...more
On September 28, 2015, the Ninth Circuit held in Shukri Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. that the FAA does not preempt the rule that the California Supreme Court enunciated in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation that...more
Since the California Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation that claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) are not subject to arbitration, California federal district courts have rejected...more
Yesterday, by a two-to-one vote, the Ninth Circuit joined the California Supreme Court in holding that Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims are an exception to the Federal Arbitration Act. In Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail...more
For a second time the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging a California Supreme Court holding that the state’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) could not be waived in a mandatory arbitration agreement....more
Arbitration. A simple word, but one that, in the context of employment agreements, was typically a “dirty” word in the eyes of California courts. Indeed, for many years, state courts could be seen as openly hostile to...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied a petition for certiorari that challenged a California Supreme Court decision carving out an exception to the federal high court’s recent holdings in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion and...more
On June 24, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a controversial decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC. While the Court in Iskanian confirmed that an express class action waiver in an employment...more