10 Cited authorities

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
563 U.S. 333 (2011) Cited 3,753 times 601 Legal Analyses
Holding that a ban on collective-action waivers in those contracts worked to "disfavor arbitration"
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds Intr.
559 U.S. 662 (2010) Cited 1,667 times 211 Legal Analyses
Holding that a prudential ripeness argument was waived
Perry v. Thomas
482 U.S. 483 (1987) Cited 1,331 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
Preston v. Ferrer
552 U.S. 346 (2008) Cited 573 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that the FAA preempted a California law giving a state agency primary jurisdiction over a dispute involving the California Talent Agency Act despite the parties' agreement to arbitrate such disputes
Discover Bank v. Superior Court
36 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 2005) Cited 476 times 70 Legal Analyses
Holding that, under some circumstances, class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements are unconscionable
Gentry v. Superior Court
42 Cal.4th 443 (Cal. 2007) Cited 348 times 65 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employee's signature on receipt of "issue resolution package," which included a 30-day opt-out provision of arbitration agreement, "reasonably led" his employer to believe "that his failure to opt out constituted acceptance of the arbitration agreement"
Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno
51 Cal.4th 659 (Cal. 2011) Cited 65 times 11 Legal Analyses
Noting that procedural unconscionability focuses on oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining power
Baker v. Aubry
216 Cal.App.3d 1259 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) Cited 37 times
Holding that Baker's claim for overtime pay, even if based on a statutory right under former Labor Code section 510, was subject to arbitration because "[t]he [FAA] preempts our state law in this area."
Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno
174 Cal.App.4th 546 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 3 times
No. B204902. May 29, 2009. REVIEW GRANTED September 9, 2009. Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BS107161, Aurelio Munoz, Judge. Fine, Boggs Perkins, David J. Reese and John P. Boggs for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rachel Folberg and Miles E. Locker for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION SUZUKAWA, J. In this case we consider whether an admittedly valid employment arbitration agreement that is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act ( 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; FAA) may be enforced to
Section 98 - Investigation of employee complaints
Cal. Lab. Code § 98 Cited 155 times 2 Legal Analyses
Providing that "[t]he Labor Commissioner may provide for a hearing in any action to recover wages, penalties, and other demands for compensation properly before the division or the Labor Commissioner, including orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission"

SONIC-CALABASAS A, INC. v. MORENO

10 Cited authorities

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

Holding that a prudential ripeness argument was waived

Holding that the FAA preempted a state statute permitting litigation of wage collection actions despite the existence of a private agreement to arbitrate

Holding that the FAA preempted a California law giving a state agency primary jurisdiction over a dispute involving the California Talent Agency Act despite the parties' agreement to arbitrate such disputes

Holding that, under some circumstances, class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements are unconscionable

Holding that an employee's signature on receipt of "issue resolution package," which included a 30-day opt-out provision of arbitration agreement, "reasonably led" his employer to believe "that his failure to opt out constituted acceptance of the arbitration agreement"

Noting that procedural unconscionability focuses on oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining power

Holding that Baker's claim for overtime pay, even if based on a statutory right under former Labor Code section 510, was subject to arbitration because "[t]he [FAA] preempts our state law in this area."

Providing that "[t]he Labor Commissioner may provide for a hearing in any action to recover wages, penalties, and other demands for compensation properly before the division or the Labor Commissioner, including orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission"