When last we wrote about judicial analytics company Gavelytics on March 13, it was announcing a $3.2 million funding round to support development of new features and expansion into additional jurisdictions. Today, the first two of these new features roll out — a rulings database and an arbitrator archive.
With today’s enhancements, Gavelytics adds two features:
Trial court rulings. This databases includes thousands of Los Angeles trial court orders dating back to 2000....
On April 30, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review an unpublished Ninth Circuit decision in Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc., No. 16-56085 (9thCir. Aug. 3, 2017). See Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (No. 17-988, U.S. Sup.). Lamps Plus framed the question presented to the Supreme Court as follows: “Whether the Federal Arbitration Act [“FAA”] forecloses a state-law interpretation of an arbitration agreement that would authorize class arbitration based solely on general language...
In each of these cases, an employer and employee entered into a contract providing for individualized arbitration proceedings to resolve employment disputes between the parties. Each employee nonetheless sought to litigate Fair Labor Standards Act and related state law claims through class or collective actions in federal court. Although the Federal Arbitration Act generally requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements as written, the employees argued that its “saving clause” removes this...
Joost Pauwelyn, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID) in Geneva, Switzerland, Co-Director of the Institute’s Centre for Trade and Economic Integration (CTEI), and Visiting Professor at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC, has published “Baseball Arbitration to Resolve International Law Disputes: Hit or Miss?” Florida Tax Review, Vol. 22, 2018. In his journal article, Professor Pauwelyn proposes...
Finally, the Supreme Court of Texas held the arbitrator did not exceed his authority when he issued an award against Jefferson County. The court said:
The County argues that the county commissioners court “eliminated” the deputy positions (along with their respective salaries) as part of its delegated legislative duty to create the county budget, and that the arbitrator effectively usurped that duty by ordering the deputies “reinstated” to a position that no longer exists. The County...