main image

Posts Tagged ‘California Supreme Court’

OTO LLC v. Kho: U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari | International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution Interviews Philip J. Loree Jr. and Richard D. Faulkner About the Denial

June 10th, 2020 Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, California Supreme Court, Challenging Arbitration Agreements, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, FAA Chapter 1, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, Gateway Disputes, Gateway Questions, International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), Substantive Arbitrability, Unconscionability, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on OTO LLC v. Kho: U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari | International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution Interviews Philip J. Loree Jr. and Richard D. Faulkner About the Denial
OTO LLC v. Kho

On June 8, 2020 the United States Supreme Court declined to review OTO LLC v. Kho, a controversial decision of the California Supreme Court, which held that an arbitration agreement was, in the circumstances, unconscionable to the extent that it purported to require an employee to arbitrate wage claims.

The California Supreme Court held that the agreement in OTO was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable under California law, and its decision that the agreement was substantively unconscionable turned on how the agreement’s procedures were less streamlined, and more akin to litigation procedures, than those available under California’s so-called Berman administrative hearing scheme, which California uses to resolve wage claims.

Also on June 8, 2020, CPR Speaks, the blog of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (“CPR”) published an excellent post on OTO, written by Harvard Law School student and CPR Intern Seorae Ko. The post explains the background of the case in more detail and discusses the arguments advanced in favor of and in opposition to the petition for certiorari.

On June 9, 2020, our friend and colleague Russ Bleemer, Editor of Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, CPR’s newsletter, interviewed our friend and colleague Richard D. Faulkner, an arbitrator, arbitration-law practitioner, and former trial judge, and the author, Philip J. Loree Jr., about the OTO denial of certiorari and what it means for practitioners. As always, Russ did a great job conducting the interview.

Today, June 10, 2020, CPR posted that video conference interview on CPR Speaks, and you can watch it HERE.

Contacting the Author

If you have any questions about this article, the interview, arbitration, arbitration-law, or arbitration-related litigation, then please contact Phil Loree Jr., at (516) 941-6094 or at PJL1@LoreeLawFirm.com.

Philip J. Loree Jr. is a partner and founding member of Loree & Loree. He has 30 years of experience handling matters arising under the Federal Arbitration Act and in representing a wide variety of clients in arbitration, litigation, and arbitration-related litigation.

Loree & Loree represents private and government-owned-or-controlled business organizations, and persons acting in their individual or representative capacities, and often serves as co-counsel, local counsel or legal adviser to other domestic and international law firms requiring assistance or support.

Loree & Loree was recently selected by Expertise.com out of a group of 1,763 persons or firms reviewed as one of Expertise.com’s top 18 “Arbitrators & Mediators” in New York City for 2019, and now for 2020. (See here and here.)

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING NOTICE: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Photo Acknowledgment

The photo featured in this post was licensed from Yay Images and is subject to copyright protection under applicable law.

California Supreme Court Upholds Default Judgment Confirming $414,601,200 Default International Arbitration Award

April 20th, 2020 Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Award Confirmed, Awards, California Supreme Court, Confirmation of Awards, Default Award, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Chapter 2, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, International Arbitration, Personal Jurisdiction, Practice and Procedure, Service of Process Comments Off on California Supreme Court Upholds Default Judgment Confirming $414,601,200 Default International Arbitration Award
default judgment award confirm

On April 2, 2020 the California Supreme Court rejected a service-of-process challenge to a default judgment confirming a $414,601,200 international arbitration award. The parties agreed that notice could be given, and service of process made, by Federal Express (“FedEx”), and the Court held that the petitioner was not required to make service under the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, November 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638 (the “Hague Convention”).  

Facts and Procedural History

Party A, apparently headquartered in the U.S., and Party B, headquartered in China, entered into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”), which contemplated the two companies forming another. But that didn’t happen and Party A demanded arbitration against Party B under the arbitration agreement in the MOU.

Party A served the arbitration agreement by FedEx, as agreed. Party B did not appear in the arbitration and the arbitrator, after hearing evidence, entered a default arbitration award. Service of the arbitration demand was made by FedEx, and Party B was given notice of each of the proceedings that comprised the arbitration.

The Arbitrator made a default award against B in the amount of $414,601,200. Party A commenced confirmation proceedings in a California state court, serving B by FedEx, as expressly agreed in the parties’ agreement.

But Party B did not appear at the confirmation proceedings, and the Court entered a default judgment confirming the award.

Party B then challenged the default judgment, contending that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over it because service was made by FedEx, and not through the procedures prescribed by the Hague Convention.

The trial court rejected the challenge, the intermediate appellate court reversed, and the California Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed the intermediate appellate court.

The California Supreme Court’s Decision to Uphold the Default Judgment

The question before the California Supreme Court was whether the Hague Convention preempted the parties’ right to serve by their agreed method of service, FedEx. California’s highest court said the answer was “no.”

Continue Reading »

AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion: What Would Cousin Vinny Have to Say About The Ninth Circuit’s Interpretation of the Equal Footing Principle?

December 10th, 2010 Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, California State Courts, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion: What Would Cousin Vinny Have to Say About The Ninth Circuit’s Interpretation of the Equal Footing Principle?

One of my favorite scenes from the movie My Cousin Vinny (1992) is Vincent Laguardia Gambini’s (a/k/a “Vinny’s”) opening statement in the criminal trial of his cousin and cousin’s friend, both of whom were arrested and mistakenly charged for murder and robbery while driving through Alabama.  Vinny (played by Joe Pesci) — a native New Yorker who is as out of place in a rural Alabama courtroom as I suppose anyone could be — dozes off during the prosecution’s opening statement only to be jarred awake by his cousin — who is facing the death penalty — so that he can deliver an opening statement.  He saunters over to the jury, and says, gesturing at the prosecutor, “Everything that guy just said is bull$#!+.  Thank you.”  Then he returns to the defense table.  (Watch the scene here, which begins approximately three minutes and 33 seconds into the clip.)     Continue Reading »

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion: What is the Scope of Federal Preemption in Class Waiver Cases?

September 30th, 2010 Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Practice and Procedure, Unconscionability, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion: What is the Scope of Federal Preemption in Class Waiver Cases?

Part II

Introduction

Part I of this two-part post (here) briefly discussed the background of  AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893, a case pending before the United States Supreme Court that will be argued on November 9, 2010.  We now delve into the details of the preemption questions before the Court and take a guess at the outcome. 

Federal Arbitration Act Preemption

The Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt all state law applicable to arbitration agreements, but it expressly preempts state law that conflicts with Section 2, and impliedly preempts all state law that “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes of Congress”  embodied in the Federal Arbitration Act.  See Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Serv., Inc., 498 F.3d 976, 988 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations and quotation omitted). 

Does Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act Expressly Preempt the Discover Bank Rule?

Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act declares that arbitration agreements within its scope “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.  Section 2 establishes substantive federal law that expressly preempts all conflicting state law, except for state law that permits “the revocation of any contract” or governs the formation, interpretation, or construction of contracts generally. 

The exception to federal preemption is exceedingly narrow, for it saves from preemption only state laws that apply equally across the board to all contracts.  The United States Supreme Court summarized it well when it said:

States may regulate contracts, including arbitration clauses, under general contract law principles and they may invalidate an arbitration clause ‘upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.  What States may not do is decide that a contract is fair enough to enforce all its basic terms (price, service, credit), but not fair enough to enforce its arbitration clause.  The Act makes any such state policy unlawful, for that kind of policy would place arbitration clauses on an unequal footing, directly contrary to the Act’s language and Congress’s intent.

Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 281 (1995) (citations and quotations omitted; emphasis in original).   Continue Reading »