The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16, codifies the federal policy of enforcing arbitration agreements. In Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983), the Supreme Court noted that “Section 2 [of the Act] is a congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration, notwithstanding any state substantive or procedural policies to the contrary. The effect of the section is to create a body of federal substantive law of arbitrability,...
The right to arbitrate a dispute is a right that arises out of a contract. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 1746 (2011).The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) prescribes the gatekeeping role of the courts in the implementation of these contract rights. Section 3 requires the court to refer arbitrable issues to arbitration, and § 4 requires the court to compel arbitration upon finding that an arbitration agreement exists and has not been performed. Either way,...
In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court held that a waiver of class action that was part of an arbitration clause in a consumer contract was enforceable despite state law to the contrary. Subsequently, in Oxford Health Plans v. Sutton, it upheld an arbitrator’s ruling that a class action could be sustained in a commercial arbitration agreement, because the arbitrator’s finding had drawn its essence from interpretation of the arbitration agreement itself. And in American Express v. Italian...
Nicolas Molina (Molina), a warehouse workder for Sandinavian Designs, Inc. (Scandinavian) sought to sue after his employment was terminated. Scandinavian sought to compel arbiration. Molina opposed the motion, contending that he speaks very little English and thus had no idea that he had signed an arbitration agreement. Last month, in Molina v. Scandinavian Designs, Inc., the Northern District of California rejected the argument.
In part, Mr. Molina's problem is evidentiary. Scandinavian claims...
In Carmona v. Lincoln Millennium Car Wash, Inc. (5/9/14) --- Cal.App.4th ---, the plaintiffs filed a putative wage and hour class action against their employers. The trial court denied the employers' motion to compel arbitration under a pre-dispute arbitration agreement, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding as follows:
The arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable: (1) it was a contract of adhesion that was presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis; and (2) although the plaintiffs...
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen has ordered Uber to change the wording of an arbitration clause in its agreement with drivers—and this time he really means it.
In an order issued Thursday, the San Francisco federal judge agreed with plaintiffs lawyers that Uber's use of an arbitration agreement was meant to limit drivers' participation in several pending class actions over tips and expenses.
The company must inform new drivers of the class action and how their rights would be affected by agreeing...
On appeal from the S.D.N.Y., Citibank challenged the district court’s denial of Citibank’s motion to compel arbitration and decision that the agreement to arbitrate was not binding on the parties. The S.D.N.Y. concluded that Signature Cards signed by appellees when opening their accounts with Citibank did not incorporate by reference the Client Manual, which contains the arbitration agreement. The Second Circuit vacated the district court judgment and remanded for further proceedings because...
On appeal, the plaintiffs asserted that their claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement included in the HAHS bylaws. According to the appeals court, however, the plaintiffs’ argument was irrelevant as their actions waived any right they may have had to engage in arbitration. The court stated despite that both Texas and federal law favor arbitration and there is a strong presumption against any waiver of the right to engage in arbitration, a party’s conduct may demonstrate...