§Why CasetextPricing

Reply Defendant Uma Enterprises Incs Reply In Support of Motion To Compel Arbitration

Reply

19 Cited authorities

  1. Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph

    531 U.S. 79 (2000)   Cited 2,421 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims under the Truth in Lending Act are arbitrable

  2. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.

    500 U.S. 20 (1991)   Cited 3,053 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (1994 ed.), may be subject to compulsory arbitration

  3. EPIC Sys. Corp. v. Lewis

    138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018)   Cited 948 times   169 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under Concepcion , "courts may not allow a contract defense to reshape traditional individualized arbitration" and "a rule seeking to declare individualized arbitration proceedings off limits" is preempted by the FAA

  4. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams

    532 U.S. 105 (2001)   Cited 1,566 times   52 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase "any other class of workers engaged in ... commerce," following the specific examples of seamen and railroad employees, includes only "transportation workers," because construing it to include all other workers "fails to give independent effect to the statute’s enumeration of the specific categories of workers" that precede it

  5. Perry v. Thomas

    482 U.S. 483 (1987)   Cited 1,344 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FAA preempted a state statute permitting litigation of wage collection actions despite the existence of a private agreement to arbitrate

  6. Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,792 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding unilateral arbitration provision substantively unconscionable

  7. Iskanian v. CSL Transportation Los Angeles, LLC

    59 Cal.4th 348 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 717 times   145 Legal Analyses
    Holding that arbitration provisions banning class-action litigation or collective arbitration of employment-related claims are enforceable under the NLRA and the FAA's saving clause, but also holding that arbitration provisions banning representative claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act violates that Act

  8. Rosenthal v. Great W. Fin. Secs. Corp.

    14 Cal.4th 394 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 795 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding fraud in the inducement "occurs when the promisor knows what he is signing but his consent is induced by fraud"

  9. Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc.

    62 Cal.4th 1237 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 258 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that carve-outs for provisional injunctive relief such as this merely confirm rights available under California statutes and are therefore not unconscionable, and disapproving Trivedi to the extent inconsistent.

  10. Mercuro v. Superior Court

    96 Cal.App.4th 167 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 261 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding arbitration provision substantively unconscionable where it "compel[ed] arbitration of the claims employees are more likely to bring"

  11. Section 1283.4 - Award requirements

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1283.4   Cited 134 times
    Defining "award"