50 Cited authorities

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
563 U.S. 333 (2011) Cited 3,853 times 601 Legal Analyses
Holding that a ban on collective-action waivers in those contracts worked to "disfavor arbitration"
First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan
514 U.S. 938 (1995) Cited 5,478 times 48 Legal Analyses
Holding that a circuit court reviewing a district court's disposition of an arbitration award should apply "ordinary, not special, standards."
Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc.
552 U.S. 576 (2008) Cited 2,003 times 63 Legal Analyses
Holding that Federal Arbitration Act provides "exclusive" grounds for vacatur or modification of arbitration award
AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc'ns Workers of Am.
475 U.S. 643 (1986) Cited 5,443 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that it was for the court to decide whether a particular labor dispute fell within the arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining agreement
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds Intr.
559 U.S. 662 (2010) Cited 1,690 times 211 Legal Analyses
Holding that a prudential ripeness argument was waived
Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth
473 U.S. 614 (1985) Cited 4,279 times 44 Legal Analyses
Holding antitrust claims arbitrable because, even if they are arbitrated, antitrust law "will continue to serve both its remedial and deterrent function"
Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs.
489 U.S. 468 (1989) Cited 3,256 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, including where the parties "specify by contract the rules under which arbitration will be conducted"
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd
470 U.S. 213 (1985) Cited 3,374 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that the word "shall" in a separate section of the FAA constituted a mandate to the district court
Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.
514 U.S. 52 (1995) Cited 1,249 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts should be guided by the “cardinal principle of contract construction: that a document should be read to give effect to all of its provisions and to render them consistent with each other”
Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle
539 U.S. 444 (2003) Cited 686 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that "gateway matters," such as the scope of an arbitration provision, should be determined by courts and not arbitrators
Section 1 - "Maritime transactions" and "commerce" defined; exceptions to operation of title
9 U.S.C. § 1 Cited 12,068 times 210 Legal Analyses
Defining the word "commerce" in the language of the Commerce Clause itself
Section 2 - Validity, irrevocability, and enforcement of agreements to arbitrate
9 U.S.C. § 2 Cited 11,110 times 119 Legal Analyses
Granting federal jurisdiction where there is "a transaction involving [interstate] commerce"
Section 3 - Stay of proceedings where issue therein referable to arbitration
9 U.S.C. § 3 Cited 7,215 times 37 Legal Analyses
Providing for a stay of judicial proceedings on "issue referable to arbitration"
Section 17500 - Untrue or misleading advertising
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 Cited 2,709 times 65 Legal Analyses
Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state
Section 17204 - Actions for Injunctions by Attorney General, District Attorney, County Counsel, and City Attorneys
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 Cited 979 times 4 Legal Analyses
Allowing actions brought by "any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property"
Section 1780 - Action by consumer; remedies; senior citizens or disabled persons; costs and attorney's fees
Cal. Civ. Code § 1780 Cited 653 times 5 Legal Analyses
Granting standing to consumers who have suffered damage "as a result of" a violation
Section 1761 - Definitions
Cal. Civ. Code § 1761 Cited 266 times 3 Legal Analyses
Defining “consumer” under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act as “an individual who seeks or acquires, by purchase or lease, any goods or services for personal, family, or household purposes”

Declaration

50 Cited authorities

Holding that a ban on collective-action waivers in those contracts worked to "disfavor arbitration"

Holding that a circuit court reviewing a district court's disposition of an arbitration award should apply "ordinary, not special, standards."

Holding that Federal Arbitration Act provides "exclusive" grounds for vacatur or modification of arbitration award

Holding that it was for the court to decide whether a particular labor dispute fell within the arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining agreement

Holding that a prudential ripeness argument was waived

Holding antitrust claims arbitrable because, even if they are arbitrated, antitrust law "will continue to serve both its remedial and deterrent function"

Holding that the Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, including where the parties "specify by contract the rules under which arbitration will be conducted"

Holding that the word "shall" in a separate section of the FAA constituted a mandate to the district court

Holding that courts should be guided by the “cardinal principle of contract construction: that a document should be read to give effect to all of its provisions and to render them consistent with each other”

Holding that "gateway matters," such as the scope of an arbitration provision, should be determined by courts and not arbitrators

Defining the word "commerce" in the language of the Commerce Clause itself

Granting federal jurisdiction where there is "a transaction involving [interstate] commerce"

Providing for a stay of judicial proceedings on "issue referable to arbitration"

Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state

Allowing actions brought by "any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property"

Granting standing to consumers who have suffered damage "as a result of" a violation

Defining “consumer” under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act as “an individual who seeks or acquires, by purchase or lease, any goods or services for personal, family, or household purposes”