California Supreme Court Civil Issues Pending: ADR
[UPDATED THROUGH MAY 3, 2012]
Is Arbitration Clause in Employment Application Valid? Is an arbitration clause in an employment application that provides “I agree to submit to binding arbitration all disputes and claims arising out of the submission of this application” unenforceable as substantively unconscionable for lack of mutuality, or does the language create a mutual agreement to arbitrate all such disputes? (See Roman v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1462.) Wisdom v. Accentcare, Inc., S200128. (opinion below C065744, formerly 202 Cal.App.4th 591), review granted 3/28/12.
Does the FAA Preempt State Consumer Protections Against Mandatory Arbitration? Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740, preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable? Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119 (opinion below B228027, formerly 201 Cal.App.4th 74), review granted 3/21/12.
Case remanded from the USSC – Can Arbitration Over a Wage Claim be Compelled Prior to the Conclusion of the Administrative Proceedings of the Labor Commissioner? The trial court denying a motion to compel arbitration, and the Court of Appeal reversed. The California Supreme Court granted review on these issues: (1) Can a mandatory employment arbitration agreement be enforced prior to the conclusion of an administrative proceeding conducted by the Labor Commissioner concerning an employee’s statutory wage claim? (2) Was the Labor Commissioner’s jurisdiction over employee’s statutory wage claim divested by the Federal Arbitration Act under Preston v. Ferrer (2008) __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 978, 169 L.Ed.2d 917? Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, S174475 (opinion below B204902, formerly 174 Cal.App.4th 546), petition granted 9/9/09. The California Supreme Court issued its opinion on 2/24/11, reversing the Court of Appeal and reinstating the trial court’s order that “until there has been the preliminary non-binding hearing and decision by the Labor Commissioner, the arbitration provisions of the employment contract are unenforceable, and any petition to compel arbitration is premature and must be denied.” Update 11/3/11: The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the existing judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, ___ U.S.__ (2011). Update 1/11/12: The California Supreme Court ordered to parties to submit supplemental briefing by 2/10/12 with replies due by 2/24/12. The parties requested extensions.
Can City’s Salary-Setting and Budget-Making Powers Be Subject to Arbitration?
Could grievances challenging the imposition of furloughs on employees covered by a ratified Memorandum of Understanding be referred to arbitration in accordance with the agreement, as ordered by the trial court, or was arbitration barred as an improper delegation of the city’s discretionary salary-setting and budget-making powers, as held by the Court of Appeal? City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, S192828 (opinion below B228732, formerly 193 Cal.App.4th 1159), review granted 7/13/11.
Is a Homeowners Association Bound to an Arbitration Agreement Executed Before the HOA Existed? And, Can Unconscionability Be Applied to the Arbitration Provisions Only? (1) Is a homeowners association bound by an arbitration provision contained in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for a common interest development that were executed and recorded prior to the time the association came into existence? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err by applying the state law doctrine of unconscionability only to the arbitration provision, and not to other provisions in the covenants, conditions and restrictions, in light of federal law prohibiting the application of state law to treat arbitration provisions differently from other provisions of the same agreement? (See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson (1995) 513 U.S. 265.) Pinnacle Museum Tower Association v. Pinnacle Market Development, S186149 (opinion below D055422, formerly 187 Cal.App.4th 24 ), review granted 11/10/10. The petition for review is here. ]. Update 4/20/11: Review granted in Villa Vicenza Homeowners Assn. v. Nobel Court Development, LLC, S190805. (opinion below D054550, formerly 191 Cal.App.4th 963), with briefing deferred pending the decision in Pinnacle Museum Tower Association. Update 8/10/11: Review granted in Diaz v. Bunkey, S194150 (opinion below B225548, formerly 195 Cal.App.4th 315, as modified), with briefing deferred pending Pinnacle Museum Tower Association. Update 1/25/12: Review granted in Promenade at Playa Vista Homeowners Assn. v. Western Pacific Housing, Inc., S198722 (opinion below B225086, formerly 200 Cal.App.4th 849), with briefing deferred pending Pinnacle Museum Tower Association. Update 1/25/12: Review granted in Promenade at Playa Vista Homeowners Assn. v. Western Pacific Housing, Inc., S198722 (opinion below B225086, formerly 200 Cal.App.4th 849), with briefing deferred pending Pinnacle Museum Tower Association. Update 5/3/12: Oral argument scheduled for 5/29/12.
Can Arbitration Be Compelled Over Granting a Charter School Petition? Can a school district be required to arbitrate disputes over the granting of a charter school petition under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, or does Education Code § 47611.5(e), preclude referring such a dispute to arbitration? United Teachers Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., S177403 (opinion below B214119, formerly 177 Cal.App.4th 863), review granted 12/23/09. Update 11/10/10: Review granted in California Teachers Association v. Governing Board, S185651, (opinion below H033788, formerly 187 Cal.App.4th 81), briefing deferred pending review in United Teachers Los Angeles. Update 4/5/12: Oral argument scheduled for 5/1/12. Update 5/1/12: Cause argued and submitted.
