§Why CasetextPricing

UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Respondent's Petition for Review

32 Cited authorities

  1. Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto

    517 U.S. 681 (1996)   Cited 1,859 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that Montana's first-page notice requirement, which governs not ‘any contract,’ but specifically and solely contracts ‘subject to arbitration,’ conflicts with the FAA and is therefore displaced by the federal measure."

  2. Engalla v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc.

    15 Cal.4th 951 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 1,170 times
    Holding that a party's "course of delay" in performing the terms of the contract, when "unreasonable or undertaken in bad faith, may provide sufficient grounds" for a finding of waiver

  3. Moncharsh v. Heily Blase

    3 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 1,063 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a party [who] is claiming the entire contract is illegal, or the arbitration agreement itself is illegal" must "raise the illegality question prior to participating in the arbitration process"

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

    14 Cal.4th 394 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 771 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"

  5. Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans of California

    21 Cal.4th 1066 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 245 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim for public injunctive relief under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) is not arbitrable, although damages claims under the CLRA are arbitrable

  6. Cronus Invs., Inc. v. Concierge Servs.

    35 Cal.4th 376 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 195 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that section 1281.2, subd. (c) "does not undermine or frustrate the FAA's substantive policy favoring arbitration" and, thus, is not preempted

  7. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, Afl-Cio v. Superior Court (First Transit, Inc.)

    46 Cal.4th 993 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 148 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the labor code "does not create property rights or any other substantive rights. Nor does it impose any legal obligations. It is simply a procedural statute allowing an aggrieved employee to recover civil penalties—for Labor Code violations—that otherwise would be sought by state labor law enforcement agencies. As we have held in the past, the right to recover a statutory penalty may not be assigned."

  8. Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney v. 100 Oak St.

    35 Cal.3d 312 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 171 times
    Adopting the majority rule as set forth in Prima Paint

  9. Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown

    29 Cal.3d 168 (Cal. 1981)   Cited 155 times
    In Brown, we dismissed an unlawful delegation challenge to statutes that allowed a memorandum of understanding between the Governor and an employee representative to supersede certain Government Code sections governing public employment.

  10. Freeman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    14 Cal.3d 473 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 174 times
    Declining to apply the "several legal remedies" principle articulated in Elkins, because it is limited to scenarios in which "the two kinds of proceedings required the plaintiff to take inconsistent positions," and, thus, "requiring him to pursue the two concurrently in different tribunals would result in an awkward duplication of procedures"

  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  12. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)