This document is a work in progress. This page is a staging area and miscellaneous incompletely parsed information.

More Court Cases #

• American Safety Equipment Corp. v. JP Maguire & Co. - TBD. Commericial Arbitration

• Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 109 S. Ct. 1248, 1250 (1989).

Opt Outs #

Enforcement of agreements with opt-outs

• Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc., 848 F.3d 1201,
• Simeon v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, No. 17-cv-5550, 2019 WL 7882143, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2019)
• Selman v. FCB Worldwide Inc., No. B168315, 2004 WL 2729656, at *3 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2004) (unpublished).6

Other #

The footnotes in Giles - Doctrine are great!

1. There have been a smattering of area-specific legislative prohibitions against mandatory arbitration. See, e.g., Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 7 U.S.C.A. §26 (providing that an employee cannot waive his right to a judicial forum regarding a dispute that arises under the whistleblower protection section of the act); 10 U.S.C. § 987(e)(3), (f)(4) (voiding arbitration clauses in payday loan or consumer credit contracts, with the exception of residential mortgages and car loans, for members of the military or their families); 15 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2) (prohibiting automobile manufacturers from imposing pre-dispute arbitration clauses in their franchise agreements with dealers); Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1639c (no mortgage lender may include a pre-dispute arbitration clause in its loan agreements); Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(e) (contracts requiring pre-dispute arbitration of whistleblower claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act not enforceable); Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-118, §8116(a), 123 Stat. 3409, 3454 (prohibits federal contractors who receive funds under the Act for contracts in excess of $1,000,000 from requiring their employees or independent contractors to arbitrate “any claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment”). Numerous bills also seek broader overriding of the Supreme Court’s pro-arbitration jurisprudence. See, e.g., Arbitration Fairness Act of 2011, S. 987, 112th Cong. § 2929 (2011); Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009, H.R. 1020 § 4, 111th Cong, 155 Cong. Rec. H. 1517 (2009); Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007, S. 1782 § 4, 110th Cong, 153 Cong. Rec. S. 9144 (2007). The most recent version of this bill was introduced by Senators Al Franken (D-Minn.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Representative Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) immediately after Concepcion was decided, and would prohibit class action bans in all consumer, employment, and civil-rights related contracts. See David Lazarus, Bill Aims to Restore Consumers’ Right to Sue, L.A. TIMES (Oct. 18, 2011), available at http://articles.latimes.com/2011/ oct/18/business/la-fi-lazarus-20111018. See also Consumer Mobile Fairness Act of 2011, S. 1652, 112th Cong. § 3 (2011). This bill, introduced by Senators Blumenthal and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Pa.), would void arbitration clauses in mobile phone contracts. While both the Arbitration Fairness Act and the Consumer Mobile Fairness Act were referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held hearings under the chairmanship of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), neither bill cleared the committee. See Michelle L. Caton, Form Over Fairness: How the Supreme Court’s Misreading of the Federal Arbitration Act Has Left Consumers in Lurch, 21 GEO. MASON L. REV. 497, 527 (2014) (“Of the 139 bills introduced into Congress between 1995 and 2010 that sought to restrict or eliminate various uses of mandatory arbitration, only five were eventually passed into law.”).

2. See, e.g., Schnuerle v. Insight Commc’ns, Inc., 376 S.W.3d 561, 569, 573 (Ky. 2012) (“[U]pon application of Concepcion, we are now constrained to conclude that under contracts like the one now before us, which contain a class action waiver and also require disputes to be arbitrated under the FAA, the federal policy favoring arbitration preempts any state law or policy invalidating the class action waiver as unconscionable based solely upon the grounds that the dispute involves many de minimis claims which are, individually, unlikely to be litigated. . . . We, of course, yield as we must to the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal law.”); Willis v. Debt Care, USA, Inc., No. 3:11-cv430-ST, 2011 WL 7121456, at 7–8 (D. Or. Oct. 24, 2011) (“[T]he vast majority of numerous, smallvalue claims . . . for statutory violations will go unprosecuted unless they may be brought as a class due to the high costs associated with pursuing individual claims. . . . This court is sympathetic to the [plaintiffs’] argument. Regrettably, AT&T forecloses many consumer class actions which may provide the only recovery for wronged individuals.”); Porreca v. Rose Grp., 2013 WL 6498392, at 1, 15 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2013) (complaining that the decision to uphold the class action ban was “unappetizing” and “lamentable”); Dean v. Draughons Junior Coll., Inc., 917 F.Supp.2d 751, 765 (M.D. Tenn. 2013) (“While required by the FAA, this result strikes the court as manifestly unjust and, perhaps, deserving of legislative attention. . . . [I]n cases such as the one presented here, requiring impoverished individuals to arbitrate could effectively prevent them from exercising their rights as state citizens.”).

https://buckleyfirm.com/sites/default/files/Buckley%20Sandler%20Special%20Alert%20-%20California%20Supreme%20Court%20Invalidates%20Widely%20Used%20Arbitration%20Provisions%20and%20Curtails%20the%20Scope%20of%20Proposition%2064.pdf

• See EEOC v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton, & Scripps, 303 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding that refusal to hire applicant who refused to sign mandatory-arbitration agreement is not unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), vacated in part and rev’d en banc in part by Nos. 00-57222 & 01-55321, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 20007 (9th Cir. 2003). The case overrules Duffield v. Robertson Stephens & Co., 144 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 1998).

• These agreements are sometimes obtained by placing mandatory-arbitration language in an employee handbook and including an agreement to be bound by its terms with a written receipt of the handbook. See O’Neil v. Hilton Head Hosp., 115 F.3d 272, 275 (4th Cir. 1997) (enforcing handbook’s mandatory-arbitration clause). Contra Nelson v. Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp., 119 F.3d 756, 762 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that an employee, by signing receipt, did not knowingly agree to employee handbook’s mandatory-arbitration clause).

Not Yet Analyzed #

O’Neil v. Hilton Head Hosp. #

enforcing agreement to arbitrate claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act

Cole v. Burns InternationalSecurity Service 105 F.3d 1465 (D.C. Cir. 1997). #

MacClelland v. Cellco #

Brown V Dillards #

• https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-dillards-inc (unread)

18-3622 - Eliasieh v. Legally Mine, LLC #

• https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03622 (unread) TODO

Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. #

Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-800 (unread) TODO

james-jackson-llc-v-willie-gary-llc #

https://casetext.com/case/james-jackson-llc-v-willie-gary-llc (unread) TODO

Bain Cotton Co. v. Chesnutt Cotton Co. #

Bain Cotton Co. v. Chesnutt Cotton Co. https://casetext.com/case/bain-cotton-co-v-chesnutt-cotton-co

• https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-800 - Bain Cotton Co. v. Chesnutt Cotton Co. (unread) TODO

Stolt-Nielsen v. Animalfeeds International Corp. #

Stolt-Nielsen v. Animalfeeds International Corp. - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1198 (unread) TODO

Other Cases #

Garza et al v. Ayvaz Pizza, LLC, No. 4:2023cv01379 - Document 34 (S.D. Tex. 2023) #

The parties dispute whether the predecessor’s arbitration agreement could be assigned to Defendant, whether it was assigned, and whether its scope is limited to claims arising out of Bustos’s employment for MUY.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 733 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2013) #

See Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 733 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2013). The Ferguson panel reversed the lower court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration, and held the FAA preempted California’s “Broughton-Cruz Rule,” which dictates that injunctive relief sought for the public’s benefit cannot be subjected to mandatory arbitration. TODO

Shawn Samson v. Nama Holdings, LLC, 09-55835 (9th Cir. 2011) #

TODO stating judicial estoppel “generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase.” → judicial estoppel and not really an element of arbitration

• https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/204590/shawn-samson-v-nama-holdings-llc/
• https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2421269/samson-v-nama-holdings-llc/

Gorlach v. Sports Club Co. #

rejecting argument that non-signing employee had impliedly consented to arbitration by continuing employment after learning that signing an arbitration agreement was a condition of employment

Market Ins. Corp. v. Integrity Ins. Co. #

Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 92 (2000) #

holding that a plaintiff seeking to invalidate an arbitration agreement on the ground that it is prohibitively expensive bears the burden of proving such expense

Brown v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc. #

A dispute resolution agreement in the middle of a fifty-one-page employee handbook was neither hidden nor buried

In re StockX Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig. #

EPSON AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, vs Arnoff et. al #

Complaint Seeking declaratory judgement that individuals did not engage in good-faith efforts at informal dispute resolution. This could make arbitration even more expensive.

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Cunard Line, Ltd., 943 F.2d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 1991) #

HayDay Farms, Inc. v. FeeDx Holdings, Inc., 55 F.4th 1232, 1236 (9th Cir. 2022) #

Paula Wallrich et al v. Samsung Electronics America et al, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-2842. #

Test #

test content v5