Arbitration Agreements

Subscribe to Arbitration Agreements

California courts, like most federal courts, have historically held that a party does not waive its contractual right to compel arbitration unless the party opposing arbitration has been prejudiced by the moving party’s delay in seeking arbitration.  However, last term in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that the Federal Arbitration…

The California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, affirming in part that the arbitration agreement contained some substantive unconscionability but remanding the case to determine whether the agreement could be salvaged by severing the unconscionable provisions. In doing so, the California Supreme Court clarified its view on the enforceability of…

In 2019, California enacted Senate (SB) Bill 707, a law codified as California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.98 and 1281.99, that automatically deems an employer’s failure to pay fees required for the commencement or continuation of arbitration within 30 days of the payment’s due date a material breach of the arbitration agreement. A…

In a pair of cases decided by the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, the Court reiterated the difference between procedural and substantive unconscionability when it comes to invalidating arbitration agreements based on unconscionability: procedural unconscionability focuses on the fairness of the process leading to the formation of the agreement, whereas substantive…

A pair of recent California Court of Appeal decisions serve as yet another reminder to employers of the difficulties that they potentially face when enforcing arbitration agreements in California and, as a result, the importance of drafting clear, precise arbitration agreements.  The first case, Hernandez v. Meridian Management Services, LLC, reiterated the importance of…

Among the many challenges employers face in enforcing employment arbitration agreements in California are employees arguing that they are not bound by the agreement because they do not recall signing it, even when the agreement contains their signature.  A California Court of Appeal decision recently shot down this argument, holding that an employee cannot evade…

On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana that bilateral arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) may require arbitration of California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims on an individual basis only.

However, Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion in Viking River Cruises also seemingly included…

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an ex-Tinder employee must arbitrate her claims against her former employer and cannot pursue her claims in court, even though her claims arose before she executed an arbitration agreement. In reaching this decision, the Ninth Circuit not only enforced the broad language of the parties’ arbitration…

California law is not typically seen as amiable to compelling employees to arbitrate their claims. However, in Franklin v. Community Regional Medical Center, ___ F.3d___(9th Cir. 2021), the Ninth Circuit panel upheld a motion to compel arbitration by a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement based on California law.

Read the full article on Jackson Lewis…