President’s weekly report — June 27, 2014

Tort Reform — Victories in California Supreme Court We received a couple of nice decisions this week from the California Supreme Court.  First, there was this decision in Verdugo v. Target, the case where the widow of a  heart-attack victim, who … Continue reading

Half a loaf in California’s latest arbitration decision

After decades of anti-arbitration decisions reversed by the United States Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court today, in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, bowed to the inevitable and acknowledged it could no longer place obstacles to the enforcement … Continue reading

A California arbitration decision stands

The California Supreme Court gained a little ground today in its perpetual tug-of-war with the United States Supreme Court over the enforcement of contracts containing arbitration provisions. The California court doesn’t like arbitration and creatively finds all sorts of reasons … Continue reading

President’s report — December 20, 2013

Obamacare — Origination Clause Challenge We filed this reply brief in Sissel v. Sibelius, our challenge to Obamacare based on the failure of the revenue-raising measure to originate in the House of Representatives, as required by the Constitution’s Origination Clause.  The … Continue reading

Are some contracts more equal than others?

Maribel Baltazar worked in one of clothing retailer Forever 21’s distribution warehouses.  She alleges that she suffered discrimination and harassment on the job, ultimately leading to her quitting.  She sued Forever 21 and certain co-workers, who then moved to compel … Continue reading

Individual arbitration is not an “unfair labor practice”

In D.R. Horton v. Cuda, Michael Cuda filed a labor claim against his employer, homebuilder D.R. Horton, purporting to act as a representative for a class.  D.R. Horton required all employees to sign a mutual arbitration agreement, however, that precluded … Continue reading

Asking again: Can silence equal consent?

In 2010, the Supreme Court held in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. that parties must affirmatively “agree to authorize” class arbitration, because class arbitration is such a different animal than individual arbitration.  The parties in that case stipulated that there … Continue reading