Home

BLOG

News

In Cook v. University of Southern California Cal. App. 5th 312, 340 (2024), reh’g denied (June 13, 2024) the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held that the arbitration clause in an employment agreement between an employee, Pamela Cook, and an employer, the University of Southern California, was unconscionable. This decision could have an important impact on future attempts to compel arbitration based on arbitration clauses in pre-existing agreements.

Read More

In Hernandez v. Sohnen Enterprises Inc., 102 Cal. App. 5th 222 (2024), reh’g denied (June 3, 2024), review filed (June 28, 2024) the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate Division, made several important findings regarding arbitration agreements. The court held that unless the parties’ arbitration agreement expressly selected California’s arbitration provisions, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts California Civil Procedure section 1281.97 (part of the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”)). The Court also found that a superior court order allowing a party to withdraw from arbitration per section 1281.97 is immediately appealable as it is the functional equivalent of an order denying arbitration.

Read More

In Smith v. Spizzirri, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that, when a district court grants a motion to compel arbitration, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay the lawsuit pending arbitration. While at first blush this question may appear highly technical, it resolves a deep circuit split among the federal courts of appeals and will have widespread impact on arbitration practice.

Read More

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently vacated a district court order approving a $5.2 million class action settlement between a plaintiff and Tinder, Inc., the mobile dating app. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the plaintiff was subject to binding arbitration, while thousands of other class members were not, she was not an adequate representative of the putative settlement class.

Read More

The California Supreme Court decided Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. S274671, 2023 WL 4553702 (Cal. July 17, 2023), in which it unanimously held that, when an employee is required to arbitrate his or her individual Labor Code claims against an employer, the employee still has standing to pursue a representative action on behalf of other employees under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698 et seq. 

Read More

Since 2015, soon after Michael Binday’s conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Second Circuit, we began what has become an eight-year effort to overturn an overbroad and constitutionally vague construction of the federal fraud statutes that labelled a complaining witness’ desire for information (called its “right to control its property”) as property itself. We […]

Read More

On January 24, 2020, Senior Associate Matthew Turetzky spoke at the New Mexico Health Law Roundtable in Taos. Addressing lawyers, consultants, and professionals from the government, private practice, and in-house roles, Matthew described the keys to swaying the government’s interest in a False Claims Act case long before the parties begin briefing motions and engaging in costly discovery.

Read More

Qualcomm Inc. “strangled competition” in the wireless device chip market and abused its dominant industry position to extract unfair technology licensing fees from device manufacturers, United States District Court Judge Lucy Koh ruled on Tuesday in an antitrust case brought against Qualcomm by the Federal Trade Commission.

Read More