§Why CasetextPricing

County of Marin v. Deloitte Consulting LLP et al

REPLY in support

26 Cited authorities

  1. The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.

    407 U.S. 1 (1972)   Cited 4,524 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should enforce a choice-of-law clause when it is part of a "freely negotiated private international agreement"

  2. Shearson/Am. Express Inc. v. McMahon

    482 U.S. 220 (1987)   Cited 1,796 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an arbitration clause was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act with respect to a claim under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

  3. Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.

    417 U.S. 506 (1974)   Cited 1,566 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding Securities Exchange Act claim arbitrable

  4. Badie v. Bank of America

    67 Cal.App.4th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 1,263 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a credit card company could not introduce an alternative dispute resolution provision through a "bill stuffer" where nothing in the original agreement mentioned dispute resolution

  5. PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc. v. Book

    538 U.S. 401 (2003)   Cited 235 times
    Holding that an arbitrator must decide whether statutory treble damages count as "punitive" within the meaning of an arbitration agreement

  6. Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc.

    175 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 599 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that disputes “need only touch matters covered by the contract containing the arbitration clause and all doubts are to be resolved in favor of arbitrability”

  7. Saint Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare of California

    31 Cal.4th 1187 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 476 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prejudice results from a party's expenditure on defending against motions that reflect a position on arbitrability

  8. Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci Am., Inc.

    858 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 728 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding tort claims were covered by a forum-selection clause because resolution of the tort claims required interpretation of the parties' contract

  9. Doe 1 v. AOL LLC

    552 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 338 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding a forum-selection clause unenforceable when a state court held that enforcement would deprive California consumers of any remedy in Virginia courts

  10. Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A

    87 F.3d 320 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 453 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a motion to dismiss based on a forum-selection clause should be treated "as a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss for improper venue."

  11. Section 638 - Appointment upon agreement of parties or upon motion of party to contract or lease

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 638   Cited 295 times   3 Legal Analyses

    A referee may be appointed upon the agreement of the parties filed with the clerk, or judge, or entered in the minutes, or upon the motion of a party to a written contract or lease that provides that any controversy arising therefrom shall be heard by a referee if the court finds a reference agreement exists between the parties: (a) To hear and determine any or all of the issues in an action or proceeding, whether of fact or of law, and to report a statement of decision. (b) To ascertain a fact necessary

  12. Section 640 - Appointment of person agreed upon by parties as referee; person appointed if parties do not agree

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 640   Cited 29 times

    (a) The court shall appoint as referee or referees the person or persons, not exceeding three, agreed upon by the parties. (b) If the parties do not agree on the selection of the referee or referees, each party shall submit to the court up to three nominees for appointment as referee and the court shall appoint one or more referees, not exceeding three, from among the nominees against whom there is no legal objection. If no nominations are received from any of the parties, the court shall appoint