Cal Biz Lit

SCOTUS To Everyone: Binding Arbitration Means Binding Arbitration, Get It?

This case isn't a California-based case.  It's a 5-page per curiam decision by the US Supremes coming from Florida.  It's yet another case where the State Court thought it could blithely ignore the FAA.

It can't. KMPG LP v. Cocchi et al., 556 U.S. ___ (2011):

Agreements to arbitrate that fall within the scope andcoverage of the Federal Arbitration Act (Act), 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq., must be enforced in state and federal courts. State courts, then, “have a prominent role to play as enforcersof agreements to arbitrate.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U. S. 49, 59 (2009).

Understand?  And hey, plaintiffs' counsel in (Brown v. Ralph’s Grocery Company (2011) ___ Cal.App.4^th ___ (2^nd Dist., B222689) and Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC (2011) ___Cal.App.4^th___ (2^nd Dist., B228027) (discussed by CBL here);  don't spend the money yet.

SCOTUS To Cal Supremes: We Said FAA Preempts. Did You Hear Us?

In three major cases this year, California appellate courts or the Supreme Court have refused to enforce arbitration agreements.  Two of them (Brown v. Ralph’s Grocery Company (2011) ___ Cal.App.4^th ___ (2^nd Dist., B222689) and Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC (2011) ___Cal.App.4^th___ (2^nd Dist., B228027), came after AT & T Mobility v. Concepcion (2011) ___ U.S. ___.CBL has been wondering if SCOTUS was likely to smite them down. 

Well, here's a hint.  In February, before Concepcion, the Cal Supremes decided Sonic Calbassas A., Inc. v. Moreno (2011) 51 Cal.4th 659. This was a wage and hour case, in which Cal Supremes held that an arbitration agreement did not bar an employee from using a statutory, pro-employee administrative procedure before the State Labor Commissioner to try to get a favorable ruling instead of going straight to contractual arbitration. 

The employer filed a cert petition, to which the US Supreme Court tersely responded: 

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.  The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of California for further consideration in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. ___ (2011).

Somehow I think we may be seeing some more rulings like that one.