313 Citing briefs
Abrams et al v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation et al
REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Compel Arbitration of Certain Plaintiffs' Claims, To Dismiss Certain Plaintiffs' Claims in Counts VII, VIII and IX, and To Stay All Remaining Claims jof Certain Plaintiffs' Pending Arbitration
Filed June 27, 2017
E.) To summarize, Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement with MaK (the MaK Contract), MaK entered into a purchase agreement and consortium agreement with Caterpiller, and Caterpiller passed on its obligations with respect to the pitch propeller to Defendant. II. Analysis *2 Arbitration agreements are regulated by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. The FAA provides that, for any suit that is referable to arbitration, the Court will stay proceedings while the matter is resolved.
Arnold et al v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation et al
REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Compel Arbitration, To Dismiss Counts VII, VIII, and IX, and To Stay All Remaining Claims Pending Arbitration
Filed June 27, 2017
II. Analysis *2 Arbitration agreements are regulated by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. The FAA provides that, for any suit that is referable to arbitration, the Court will stay proceedings while the matter is resolved.
Arnold et al v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation et al
BRIEF IN SUPPORT re MOTION to Compel Arbitration, To Dismiss Counts VII, VIII, and IX, and To Stay All Remaining Claims Pending Arbitration
Filed May 1, 2017
B. The Federal Arbitration Act *3 The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governs whether an arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable, and whether a dispute that gave rise to litigation falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement. 9 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2; Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler–Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985); see also Becker Autoradio U.S.A., Inc. v. Becker Autoradiowerk GmbH, 585 F.2d 39, 43 (3d Cir.1978). The FAA establishes a strong federal policy in favor Case 4:16-cv-01345-MWB Document 59-1 Filed 05/01/17 Page 93 of 133 Oral Cancer Prevention Intern., Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d..
ISKANIAN v. CLS TRANSPORTATION OF LOS ANGELES
Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice
Filed April 11, 2013
Pagei MOTION FOR AN ORDERDEEMING CLS To HAVE WAIVED ARBITRATION IN IT IA TI VE L E G A L G R O U P A P C 18 00 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S E C O N D F L O O R , L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 90 06 7 oO o n DB A UW F& F Ww N Y y o N O N O NH N N O V N N O N N m w m m l e t a o n N D N A N S F W D N U E hl Cl CO Ul Ul Ul UC Ol Ul Ul CU CO RM OU NC CU CU CN OU R O C U R l U C U M O O TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATUTES Cinel v. Barna, 206 Cal. App. 4th 1383 (May 18, 2012)...eeecesesetecceccecssecessseeseeseee 6, 7,8 Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 443 (2007)..........ccsssscecesssccerecsesessetsecesaneacescesesteeasensers 2 St. Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare OfCalifornia, 31 Cal. 4th 1187 (2003) .............sccsceee 6 CASES AT&TMobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011)....ccsscssccssssssscesssssessscesssssssessessecoves2 Sink vy. Aden Enterprises, Inc., 352 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2003)..........:esccccesssseseseseceseesessseeseeneeee 7 OTHER AUTHORITIES 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seg. (Arb. Act (FAA)).....eeesessecceececsnersecensesesessasseccasecsnsateasessesessceseeensasenesess 2 Page ii MOTION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING CLS TO HAVE WAIVED ARBITRATION IN IT IA TI VE L E G A L G R O U P A P C 1 8 0 0 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , S E C O N D F L O O R , L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 O o S N B A O A P F W D N H = N O N O N O D P Y B Y N N O B w B e B e B e B e B R R e S e e e B P u N R R R E S Y F B G e D A D E a n g e s I INTRODUCTION CLShas repudiated the arbitration agreements into which it entered with 19 of the Plaintiffs.
Abrams et al v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation et al
REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Dismiss Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Causes of Action in Pls' Am Compl, to Compel Arbitration of First, Second and Third Causes of Action in Pls' Am Compl, and to Stay Any Claims that Are Not Dismissed Pending Arbitration
Filed June 27, 2017
at 773–74. In those cases, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., would favor speedy resolution of the motion without the delay of discovery. Id.
Ahern et al v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation et al
REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Compel Arbitration of First, Second, Third, Seventh and Eighth Clauses of Action in Pls' Am Compl for 4 Pls and to Stay Claims Pending Arbitration
Filed June 27, 2017
at 773–74. In those cases, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., would favor speedy resolution of the motion without the delay of discovery. Id.
I.C., a minor, by and through his natural parent, Nasim Chaudhri v. Zynga, Inc.
MOTION to Compel Arbitration or, in the Alternative, Compel Discovery
Filed May 8, 2020
Case 4:20-cv-01539-YGR Document 36 Filed 05/08/20 Page 13 of 21 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 7 ZYNGA’S MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION CASE NO. 4:20-CV-01539-YGR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. LEGAL STANDARD The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) governs the enforcement of arbitration agreements and reflects a strong policy in favor of arbitration. 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16; see also Courant Decl., Ex. 3 (current) at 16 (recognizing that the FAA governs interpretation and enforcement of the Zynga arbitration agreement). Section 2 of the FAA provides that any written arbitration agreement “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2.
Abrams et al v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation et al
BRIEF IN SUPPORT of Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay re MOTION to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Filed May 1, 2017
A. The Federal Arbitration Act The FAA, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, governs all contracts that rely on a written arbitration clause and concern interstate or foreign commerce. 9 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2. If a court finds that a given dispute falls under a valid arbitration clause, then the court must stay court proceedings pending arbitration (9 U.S.C. § 3) and compel arbitration (9 U.S.C. § 4) if a party requests such relief.
Lifestream Complete Senior Living Incorporated et al v. Arizona Healthcare Cost Containment System et al
MOTION to Dismiss Case or, in the Alternative, Stay Pending Arbitration
Filed October 6, 2016
_Qf Claim gr CQntroycrs~ to ArbitrD\i911. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach, termination, or validity thereof, ucept for temporary, preliminary, or pennanent injunctive relief or any other form of equitable relief, shall be settled by binding arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") and conducted by a sole Arbitrator ("Arbitrator") in accordance with the AAA 's Commercial Arbitration Rules ("Ruh:s"), The arbitration shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1·16, to the exclmion of state laws inconsistent therewith or that would produce a different result, and judgment on the award rendered by the Arbitrator (the "Award") may be entered by any court having jurisdiction thereof. A stenographic record shall be made of all testimony in any arbitration in which any disclosed claim or counterclaim exceeds $250,000.
Digiovanni-Fisher v. Gold's Holding Corp.
MOTION to Dismiss Case and, MOTION to Compel Arbitration
Filed July 27, 2016
A. The Legal Standard for Compelling Arbitration. It is well settled that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., “compels judicial enforcement of a wide range of arbitration agreements,” including those contained in 5 Gold’s Holding Corp. is not a proper defendant in this litigation, as it is not Plaintiff’s employer. However, Gold’s Holding Corp. is covered by the arbitration agreement that governs Plaintiff’s claims and therefore seeks to compel arbitration.