Cronus Invs., Inc. v. Concierge Servs.

7 Citing briefs

  1. Brian Trenz v. On-Line Administrators, Inc. et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint

    Filed November 4, 2016

    The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) governs the enforceability and scope of arbitration provisions where, as here, the provisions require that the FAA apply. See Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 376, 394. See also Votta Decl., Ex.

  2. Sabatino v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

    MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration

    Filed March 23, 2015

    First, the Arbitration Agreement’s statement that “[t]he Federal Arbitration Act will govern the interpretation and enforcement” of the agreement is a sufficient basis for application of the FAA. See Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 442-43 (2006) (FAA found to preempt state law where arbitration agreement expressly provided that the FAA would govern); see also Cronus Invs., Inc. v. Concierge Servs., 35 Cal. 4th 376, 394 (2005) (“[P]arties to an arbitration agreement [may] expressly designate that any arbitration proceeding should move forward under the FAA’s procedural provisions rather than under state procedural law.”).

  3. Gillette v. Uber Technologies,Inc.

    MOTION to Compel Arbitration

    Filed January 23, 2015

    First, the Arbitration Provision so states, which is sufficient to bring it within the purview of the FAA. See Buckeye Check Cashing, 546 U.S. at 442-443 (Where arbitration agreement expressly provided that FAA was to govern, the FAA preempted application of state law and thus under the FAA, the question of the contract’s validity was left to the arbitrator); Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 63-64 (1995) (For state law to apply exclusively to an arbitration agreement, the agreement must opt out of the FAA and express that state law applies); Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services, 35 Cal. 4th 376, 394 (2005) (recognizing parties to an arbitration agreement may expressly designate that the FAA’s procedural provisions apply); Rodriguez v. American Technologies, Inc., 136 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1115 (2006) (reversing lower court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because the parties expressly agreed that any arbitration proceeding would move forward under the FAA’s procedural provisions and the trial court therefore lacked discretion under state arbitration law to deny the motion). Second, the Licensing Agreement within which the Arbitration Provision is contained affects commerce.

  4. UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

    Appellant's Answer Brief on the Merits

    Filed May 20, 2010

    Jd. at 205. See also Cronus Investment, Inc.v. Concierge Services, (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376, 386; United T.ransportation, 7 Cal.App.4th 804, 808. The narrow scope of inquiry mandated by CCP 1281.2 is also taken from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Steelworkers decisions.

  5. UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

    Appellant's Answer to Petition for Review

    Filed November 13, 2009

    (Jd. at 205.) (See also Cronus Investment, Inc. v. Concierge Services, (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376, 386.) In United Firefighters ofLos Angeles v. City ofLos Angeles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1576, the Court of Appealextolled the public policy in favor ofarbitration specifically in the context of labor disputes: “The public policy ofthis state favors arbitration because it provides a means for the peaceful resolution of labor disputes and the promotion of industrial stabilization.

  6. BALTAZAR v. FOREVER 21

    Respondent’s Petition for Review

    Filed January 30, 2013

    That aspect of Wolsey has been rejected by our Supreme Court. (See Cronus Investments,Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376, 393, fn. 8, followed in Mastick v. TD Ameritrade, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1263-1265; see also Mount Diablo Medical Center v. Health NetofCalifornia,Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 711, 717-726 [disagreeing with Wolsey’s choice-of-law analysis]; Valencia v. Smyth, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at pp. 173-175, 177-180 [CAA’s procedural provisions apply in state court unless arbitration agreement expressly adopts FAA’s procedural provisions].) In sum, Wolsey doesnot support the application of the FAA in this case and there is no evidencethatplaintiff's employmentor any relevant transaction involved interstate commerce.

  7. UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

    Respondent's Petition for Review

    Filed October 26, 2009

    The statutory provisions set forth in this paragraph control the outcomeofthis case, ~ Doubts as to whetheran arbitration clause applies to a particular dispute should be | resolved in favor of sending the parties to arbitration. (Cronus Investment, Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376, 386; Vianna v. Doctors’ Management Co. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1189.) However, the right to compel arbitration depends upon the existence of a valid contract between the parties. (County ofContra Costa v. 7 Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (1996) a7 Cal.App.4th 237, 245; Marsch v. illiams al. App. ; . € question of w ra valid agreement to arbitrate exists is determined by reference to state law applicable to contracts generally.