Filed December 19, 2014
In Circuit City, the Court declined to apply a similar “variable” definition of “commerce,” in order to read Section 1’s employment contract exception narrowly. See 532 U.S. at 116-19; id. at 133-34, 137 (Souter, J., dissenting).
Filed February 19, 2013
)(emphasis added); Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph (2000) 531 U.S. 79, 90-91 (Green Tree) (concerning the waiveroffederal “rights”, the court asked “whether Congress has evinced an intention to preclude waiverofjudicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue.”) (emphasis added); Gilmerv. 10 Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. (1991) 500 U.S. 20, 23-24, 26 (motion to compel arbitration of an ADEA claim granted where the Court stated that “having made the bargain to arbitrate, the party should be held to it unless Congressitself has evinced an intention to preclude a waiverofjudicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue”); Equal Emp ’t Opportunity Comm'n v. Waffle House, Inc. (2002) 534 U.S. 279, 290, 296, fn. | (Americans with Disabilities Act); Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams (2001) 532 U.S. 105, 121, 123 (interpreting FAA and holdingit applies in the employment context).) Regardless of the number of times Appellant says class and representative actions are unwaivable substantive rights (approximately 50 times in the OB), the law does not support this contention.
Filed December 20, 2012
(Ibid. [emphasis added]; see also Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. at p. 123 [quoting Mitsubishi’s statement thatparties to arbitration do not forgo substantive rights in a case involving state-law claims].) Similarly, in Kristian v. Comcast Corp. (1st Cir. 2006) 446 F.3d 25, the court invalidated arbitration provisions that would “prevent the vindication of statutory rights under state and federal law.”
Filed July 16, 2010
where the Court held that the FAA applies to employment agreements. Circuit City, 532 U.S. at 119. The 8 Circuit Cit decision constitutes a ringing endorsement of the arbitration process by our Nation’s 9 highest court and reaffirms that the FAA compels judicial enforcement of otherwise valid arbitration 10 agreements.
Filed July 12, 2017
Id. at 266 (holding a residential termite plan to be covered by the FAA even though all services were performed intra-state because of the multi-state nature of the company and the fact that materials used by the company came from out of state); see also Circuit City Stores, Inc., 532 U.S. at 109-118 (sales employee’s arbitration agreement with employer engaged in nationwide business fell within the scope of the FAA). Here, Defendants’ business activities involve and affect interstate commerce.
Filed June 27, 2017
Indeed, the FAA serves as “a response to hostility of American courts to the enforcement of arbitration agreements, a judicial disposition inherited from then-longstanding English practice.” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 111 (2001). Moreover, a court is required to “resolve ‘any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues ... in favor of arbitration.’
Filed May 25, 2017
Id. at 266 (holding a residential termite plan to be covered by the FAA even though all services were performed intra-state because of the multi-state nature of the company and the fact that materials used by the company came from out of state); see also Circuit City Stores, Inc., 532 U.S. at 109-118 (sales employee’s arbitration agreement with employer engaged in nationwide business fell within the scope of the FAA). Here, Defendants’ business activities involve and affect interstate commerce.
Filed May 5, 2017
The United States Supreme Court has warned against judicial rulings designed to erode FAA precedence “by indirection.” Circuit City Stores, Inc., 532 U.S. at 122. Instead, it is the intent of Congress “to move the parties to an arbitrable dispute out of court and into arbitration as quickly and easily as possible.”
Filed April 6, 2017
However, EPA failed to offer a reasoned explanation as to how removal of the baseline load will result in attainment of water quality 6 EPA’s interpretation also violates the interpretive canon that general words following more specific terms “are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 114-15 (2001). In 40 C.F.R. § 130.
Filed March 8, 2017
Rather, as in many circumstances, the surrounding statutory provisions “counteract the effect” of the “expansive modifier[] * * * ‘any.’ ” Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 220 n.4 (2008); see Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 109 (2001) (imposing limiting construction on the phrase “any other class of workers” in light of the surrounding context). The “legislative scheme,” and the severe and constitutionally suspect consequences of a broad reading, Witkovich, 353 U.S. at 200-202, make clear that the President may not use his authority under Section 1182(f) to modify the criteria for denying entry to a class of aliens Congress already addressed in Section Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KJM Document 65-1 Filed 03/08/17 Page 45 of 61 PageID #: 1324 37 1182(a).