Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 OCTOBER 2015

The Supreme Court Preview, Part II: Tuning Up Arbitration Clauses

California state and federal courts have a rocky history with the U.S. Supreme Court, as the highest court in the land has repeatedly reversed the Ninth Circuit and California state courts in deciding cases under the Federal Arbitration Act like AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, Preston v. Ferrer, and Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

This is the second post in our series "The Supreme Court Preview," view the first post here.

California state and federal courts have a rocky history with the U.S. Supreme Court, as the highest court in the land has repeatedly reversed the Ninth Circuit and California state courts in deciding cases under the Federal Arbitration Act like AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, Preston v. Ferrer, and Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams. In what may be a continuation of that trend, the Court has teed up two more cases under the FAA, one from the Ninth Circuit, and one from California state courts, but both involving California's reluctance to enforce arbitration agreements.

  • DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, No. 14-462: Already argued on the second day of the new term, DIRECTV is a follow-up of sorts to the Concepcion decision, which held that a California law effectively mandating that class actions be available in arbitration agreements was preempted by the FAA, and that class

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from