Arbitration: Other Cases

Tip

We are working on reorganising these cases. In the meantime they are split amongst two pages. See the new version of this page.

Supreme Court Decisions #

Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987) #

Part of Mitsubishi trilogy which allowed arbitration to hear statutory claims.

Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989) #

Part of Mitsubishi trilogy which allowed arbitration to hear statutory claims.

Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson 513 US 265 (1995) #

One Line Summary: contracts requiring arbitration is applied to all disputes involving commerce even though it isn’t interstate

  • Court Opinion (Court Listener) (unread)
  • Oyez
  • Majority Author: Stephen G. Breyer (unread)
  • Concurrence: Sandra Day O’Connor (unread)
  • Dissents: Scalia, Clarence Thomas (unread)

Twenty state attorneys general as amici curiae argued that Southland should be overruled. 1

“I do not believe that proper application of stare decisis prevents correction of the mistake.”

— Justice Scalia, dissenting.

Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681 (1996) #

One Line Summary: The FAA must also inquire whether it singles out arbitration or treats arbitration provisions with ‘suspect status’

Pull Quote (from syllabus):
Montana's first-page notice requirement, which governs not "any contract," but specifically and solely contracts "subject to arbitration," conflicts with the FAA and is therefore displaced by the federal meas- ure. Generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability, may be applied to invalidate arbitration agreements without contravening § 2, see, e. g., Allied-Bruce, 513 U. S., at 281, but courts may not invalidate arbitration agreements under state laws applicable only to arbitration provisions

The Montana Supreme Court had two justices who refused to sign on to the order remanding the case from the Supreme Court of the United States to the state trial court. 2

Circuit City v. Adams (2001) #

One Line Summary: Maxim of ejusdem generis3 applies to FAA exclusion of any other class of workers”. Legislative history was not relevant to interpreting the statute.

  • Oyez
  • Majority Author: Anthony M. Kennedy
  • Dissents: Stevens (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer) and Souter

Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 US 440 (2006) #

One Line Summary: challenges to legality of contract with an arbitration clause must be determined by the arbitrator in the first instance.

  • Wikipedia
  • Oyez
  • Majority Author: Antonin Scalia
  • Dissents: Clarence Thomas

Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 US 576 (2008) #

One Line Summary: FAA is exclusive and contract can’t expand scope of review to the judiciary

Pull Quote:

But whatever the consequences of our holding, the statutory text gives us no business to expand the statutory grounds

The footnotes are also interesting since they give more history as to the federal statute.

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) #

Core Question: does FAA preempt state law on enforcement of arbitration on availability of class-wide relief

Pull Quote (from syllabus):

Because it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67, California’s Discover Bank rule is preempted by the FAA. Pp. 4–18

American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 US 228 (2013) #

One Line Summary: The FAA does not permit courts to invalidate clauses that mandate individual arbitration

17-988 Lamps Plus, Inc. V. Varela (2019). #

Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), an arbitration agreement that is ambiguous as to the availability of class arbitration does not manifest sufficient consent by the parties to submit to class arbitration. In a 5-4 opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that the arbitration agreement between Varela and his employer, Lamps Plus, which contained only general language commonly used in arbitration agreements, did not provide the necessary contractual basis for compelling class arbitration.

17-340 New Prime Inc. V. Oliveira (01/15/2019), (Supreme Court 2019) #

One Line Summary: The court decides if FAA applies. 9 U.S. Code §1 exemptions apply to “agreements to perform work” not just employment agreements.

Non Supreme Court Federal Cases #

California Supreme Court Cases #

Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. S274671, 2023 WL 4553702 (Cal. July 17, 2023) #

California Non-Supreme Court Cases #

Ochoa v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Ford Motor Warranty Cases) #

Quote: “FMC could not compel arbitration based on plaintiffs’ agreements with the dealers that sold them the vehicles. Equitable estoppel does not apply because, contrary to FMC’s arguments, plaintiffs’ claims against it in no way rely on the agreements.”

District Court Cases #

Parm v. Nat’l Bank of Cal., N.A., 835 F.3d 1331 #

TODO

INETIANBOR v. CASHCALL INC (2014) #

TODO

Parnell v. Cashcall, Inc. #

TODO

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Bobker, 636 F. Supp. 444 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) #

Defines manifest disregard for the law (in the 2nd circuit)

Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. 43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 621 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) #

TODO

In re: TikTok Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-04699 #

TODO

Abernathy v. DoorDash, Inc., 438 F. Supp. 3d 1062 #

One Line Summary: mass arbitration is not sufficient to get out of arbitration agreement

TODO

Zenia Chavarria v. Ralphs Grocery Company, 733 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2013) #

TODO Pull Quote (from syllabus):

Pull Quote (from syllabus):
> The policy was procedurally unconscionable because it was a condition of applying for employment and was presented on a “take it or leave it” basis. In addition, its terms were not provided to the plaintiff until three weeks after she had agreed to be bound by it. > Specifically, the policy’s arbitrator selection process would always produce an arbitrator proposed by the defendant in employee-initiated arbitration proceedings; the policy precluded institutional arbitration administrators, which have established rules and procedures to select a neutral arbitrator; and the policy’s arbitrator-fee-apportionment provision would have the effect of pricing employees out of the dispute resolution process

Armstrong v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 59 F.4 th 1101, 1014 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2023). #

Morgan teaches that there is no strong federal policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements.

Analysis #

TODO

Richards v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 11-17530, 2013 WL 4437601 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2013). #

TODO
  • Status: Effectively Reversed by Morgan 5 TODO

Harrison v. Envision Holding Management Inc. Board of Directors, et al., No. 22-1098 (United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit). (2023) #

Pull Quote:

by prohibiting a claimant such as Harrison from obtaining any form of relief that would benefit anyone other than himself, prevents the effective vindication of the statutory remedies outlined in § 1132(a)(2). In other words, the effect of Section 21 of the Plan, if enforced, would be that participant/claimants such as Harrison would be left without any guarantee that a suit seeking the statutory remedies set forth in § 1132(a)(2) would ever be filed by the DOL (and, in turn, that those statutory remedies would ever be available).

arb that precludes ERISA plan-wide relief under Section 502(a) not enforceable TODO

Ting v. AT & T, 182 F. Supp. 2d 902 (N.D. Cal. 2002) #

TODO

Espin v. Citibank, N.A. (E.D.N.C.) #

  • Statement Of Interest Of The United States Of America

    Section 4042(a)(3) allows plaintiffs in this case to participate in an SCRA class action in federal court notwithstanding their previous agreement to individual arbitration, regardless of when the SCRA violations are alleged to have occurred. The United States respectfully urges the Court to deny Defendant Citibank, N.A.’s motion to compel arbitration of the SCRA claims.

  • Order on Motion To Compel Arbitration

Writ of Certiorari #

Argent Trust Company v. Harrison 23-30 #

Status: Certiorari rejected

Issue: Whether a participant in a plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act who asserts statutory claims under that statute can be compelled, pursuant to a binding arbitration provision, to submit his claims to individual arbitration.

HomeServices of America, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Scott Burnett, et al. #

Status: Certiorari rejected

California #

In re Uber Technologies Wage and Hour Cases #

Status: Certiorari rejected

One Liner: The People and the Labor Commissioner are not parties to those arbitration agreements.

Footnotes #

  1. Schwartz, D. (2004). Correcting Federalism Mistakes in Statutory Interpretation: The Supreme Court and the Federal Arbitration Act. Law and Contemporary Problems, 67(1), 5–54. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol67/iss1/2 pp 10 ↩︎

  2. Reuben, R. C. (1996). Western Showdown: Two Montana judges buck the U.S. Supreme Court. ABA Journal, 82(10), 16–16. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27839725 ↩︎

  3. Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation §16 ↩︎

  4. Justice SCALIA joins all but footnote 7 of this opinion. ↩︎

  5. Need to double check this. ↩︎

January 13, 2025
Edit this page
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. The author(s) are not attorneys.

Arbitration Information is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0