September 11, 2008 Litigation
|
|
- David Day
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Litigation Bei j i n g Fr a n k f u r t Ho n g Ko n g Lo n d o n Lo s An g e l e s Mu n i c h Ne w Yo r k Si n g a p o r e To k y o Wa s h i n g t o n, DC The California Supreme Court Allows Parties to Agree on the Scope and Standard of Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards In ruling that parties to an arbitration agreement can establish by contract the scope of judicial review of an arbitration decision, the California Supreme Court in Cable Connection Inc., et al., v. DirecTV Inc., 1 constructed a safe passage through what appeared to be hostile terrain created by the United States Supreme Court only five months ago in Hall Street Associates L.L.C. v. Mattel Inc. 2 In a 5-2 decision 3 filed on August 25, 2008, Justice Corrigan concluded that the benefits of resolving disputes straightaway must yield to the state policy of allowing contracting parties to agree to the terms and conditions of the proceeding established to resolve their dispute. 4 While the court hinted at an outer boundary on the power of the parties to establish a standard of review by agreement flipping a coin or studying the entrails of a dead fowl, for example, would likely not be allowed the parties to a contract will be given a wide berth by the state courts in California to agree on the process and procedure for deciding how an arbitration proceeding will be conducted and reviewed. The Court stated that parties seeking to allow judicial review of the merits, and to avoid an additional dispute over the scope of review, would be well advised to provide for that review explicitly and unambiguously in the written agreement between the parties. The Cable Connection decision allows parties to retain the perceived speed and efficiency of streamlined arbitrations without surrendering the desire for appropriate judicial review of difficult For further information about this Client Alert, please contact: William E. Wallace III Partner, Litigation (202) wwallace@milbank.com Stuart Allen Associate, Litigation (213) sallen@milbank.com You may also contact any member of Milbank s Litigation Group. Contact information can be found at the end of this Client Alert or on Milbank s website at: milbank.com/en/ PracticeAreas/ LitigationArbitration_ alpha.htm 1 No. S147767, 2008 Cal. LEXIS U.S. (2008), 128 S. Ct (2008). 3 Justice Kennard, Justice Baxter, Justice Werdegar, and Justice Chin concurred with the majority opinion. 4 This path through the hostile terrain created by the U.S. Supreme Court was anticipated by the Client Alert on Hall Street Associates issued by Milbank on March 28, 2008.
2 2 questions of law. Parties may confidently contract to resolve their dispute by way of arbitration while simultaneously managing the risk of an errant arbitral decision by providing for a scope of judicial review broader than that which would be allowed by the Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA ) and the Supreme Court decision in Hall Street Associates. Consequently, Cable Connection underscores the importance of drafting a well constructed contract before an arbitration begins. The decision could also have the unintended effect of creating or exacerbating a race to the courthouse once an arbitral decision is announced. The winner obviously will want to limit as much as possible the avenues for review and reversal and one way to do that would be to have the Hall Street Associates rule apply during the postarbitration proceeding. To that end, the winner will have a strong incentive for doing whatever can be done to have the review process occur in federal court rather than California state court (or in any other court that might follow the lead of the California Supreme Court). Conversely, the loser will want as broad a standard of review as possible and that most likely will be found in a California state court, or, once again, in a state court of any state likely to follow the lead of California. However, success ultimately will depend on more than winning the race to the clerk s office. To deploy successfully the holding of Cable Connection, the party will need to have adequate support in the contract. The time to address the language of the contract is now; not when you are facing the issue in court. Background Satellite television provider DirecTV entered into contracts with retail dealers to provide customers with the equipment needed to receive its satellite signal. Those agreements included arbitration clauses that stated that the arbitrators would not have the power to commit errors of law or legal reasoning, and [that] the award may be vacated or corrected on appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction for any such error. Dealers from four states brought suit in Oklahoma, asserting on behalf of a nationwide class that DirecTV had wrongfully withheld commissions and assessed improper charges. DirecTV successfully moved to compel arbitration. The contract provided that the situs of the arbitration would be California, and also provided that the arbitration would be governed by the United States Arbitration Act, the rules of the American Arbitration Association ( AAA ) and the substantive law of California. It was also stipulated that the underlying contract involved interstate commerce. The arbitration panel from the AAA first addressed whether the parties agreement permitted the arbitration to proceed on a classwide basis and concluded that even though the contract is silent and manifests no intent on this issue, arbitration on a classwide basis was authorized under precedential state law. The majority of the panel deemed the question one of substantive California law, though it also relied on AAA rules and policy governing class arbitration. The award was clear that class arbitration was not necessarily required in this case; it was merely permitted by the contract. DirecTV filed a petition to vacate the award in the California state court. Both parties proceeded on the assumption that the California Arbitration Act ( CAA ) governed the proceeding. The trial court vacated the decision of the arbitrator. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing the merits of the arbitrators decision. 5 The California 5 The California Supreme Court s review of the issue of whether classwide arbitration available under an agreement that is silent on the matter resulted in a reversal of the Court of Appeal and a remand to arbitration.
3 3 Supreme Court reversing held that [t]he California rule is that the parties may obtain judicial review of the merits by express agreement. (emphasis added). The Supreme Court s Decision Cable Connection is a modification of previous law established by the California Supreme Court. In 1992, the Court held in Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase that in the absence of some limiting clause in the arbitration agreement, the merits of the award, either on questions of fact or of law, may not be reviewed except as provided in the statute [the CAA]. 6 In Cable Connection, the Court explained that Moncharsh discussed how the drafters of the CAA established the statutory grounds for judicial review with the expectation that arbitration awards are ordinarily final and subject to a restricted scope of review, but that parties may limit the arbitrators authority by providing for review of the merits in the arbitration agreement. 7 Nevertheless, in the time since the Moncharsh decision, no Court of Appeal had enforced a contract clause calling for judicial review of an arbitration award on its merits. To reach this decision, the California Supreme Court distinguished Hall Street as only applicable to federal cases in federal courts using the FAA. In contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court gave significant weight to policy considerations favoring the enforcement of contractual arbitration arrangements. The U.S. Supreme Court concentrated on whether the FAA has textual features at odds with enforcing a contract to expand judicial review following the arbitration. 8 Conversely, the California Court focused its analysis on the reasons that parties contract to utilize arbitration ab initio and stated that [i]ncorporating traditional judicial review by express agreement preserves the utility of arbitration as a way to obtain expert factual determinations without delay, while allowing the parties to protect themselves from perhaps the weakest aspect of the arbitral process, its handling of disputed rules of law. In its lengthy consideration of the policy justifications for its holding, the California Supreme Court stated that [t]he benefits of enforcing agreements like the one before us are considerable, for both the parties and the courts. The development of alternative dispute resolution is advanced by enabling private parties to choose procedures with which they are comfortable. Agreeing with commentators, the Court recognized that provisions for expanded judicial review are a product of market forces operating in an increasingly judicialized arbitration setting that feature many of the attributes of court proceedings. The Court fashioned its holding to address the desire of parties to have protection from legal error by arbitrators a desire resulting from the experience of sophisticated parties in high stakes cases, where the arbitrators awards deviated from the parties expectations in startling ways. Moreover, the Court recognized that [t]he judicial system reaps little benefit from forcing parties to choose between the risk of an erroneous arbitration award and the burden of litigating their dispute entirely in court. Enforcing contract provisions for review of awards on the merits relieves pressure on congested trial court dockets. 6 Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 25 (citations omitted). 7 See Moncharsh, 3 Cal.4th at p Hall Street, U.S. at, 128 S.Ct. at 1404.
4 4 The Dissent Writing for the dissent, Justice Moreno agreed with the majority to the extent that it held that parties may define the arbitrator s powers in such a way as to broaden somewhat the scope of judicial review beyond the usual narrow grounds for such review set forth in Moncharsh... 9 His dissent focused on the scope of review that the majority provided dissatisfied parties to arbitrations. According to Justice Moreno, the relevant statutes and pertinent legislative history reveals a legislative intent to circumscribe the scope of judicial review and defer to the judgment of the arbitrator. The dissent read the applicable statutes to permit parties to contract to compel a court to vacate an award where an arbitrator acts unreasonably and arbitrarily in addressing legal questions, but not to permit parties to appeal an arbitration award to a court where the arbitrator s answer to a legal question was not clearly erroneous. To Justice Moreno, the majority opinion overstepped the applicable statutory language. Practical Implications Parties looking to minimize the risk of a renegade arbitral decision while simultaneously taking advantage of the efficiencies of the arbitration process are advised to focus on at least two critical points. First, the parties should provide for heightened review explicitly and unambiguously in the agreement. There are two components to such explicit and unambiguous drafting proper language and proper law. In Cable Connection, the parties specifically contracted that the arbitrators would not have the power to commit errors of law or legal reasoning, and [that] the award may be vacated or corrected on appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction for any such error. By using such language, parties can stay within the boundaries of the CAA which, as stated clearly in Cable Connection, authorizes review on the ground that an award exceeds the arbitrators powers. In addition, parties should also write clear choice of law provisions to avoid the possibility of a federal court applying the FAA as procedural law instead of the CAA a situation that would negate the opportunity for heightened review provided by Cable Connection. A choice of law provision calling for California substantive and procedural law would address this point. The second lesson from this decision is for the parties to act expeditiously after a decision is announced to maximize the ability to be in the forum that will be most hospitable to the ultimate goal of the litigant. If you are the party that received the short straw from the arbitration, you might want to consider the advantages of being in a California state court if possible. If you are the party that prevailed, you might want to be in federal court where, all other things being equal, it is more likely that the Hall Street Associates rule will be applied. Under Cable Connection, careful practitioners can draft contracts with arbitration clauses that provide for a level of judicial review reflecting the desires of the parties while possessing a reasonable expectation that the intention of the parties, as reflected in their agreement, will be enforced by the judiciary. * * * * * * * * This Client Alert is a source of general information for clients and friends of Milbank. Its content should not be construed as legal advice, and readers should not act upon the information in this Client Alert without consulting counsel. 2008, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney Advertising, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 9 Chief Justice George joined in the dissent.
5 For further information about this client alert, please visit our website at or contact one of the Litigation partners listed below. New York Wayne M. Aaron Thomas A. Arena Sander Bak Jeffrey Barist James N. Benedict, Chair George S. Canellos James G. Cavoli Christopher E. Chalsen Scott A. Edelman David R. Gelfand, Practice Group Leader John M. Griem, Jr Douglas W. Henkin Michael L. Hirschfeld Lawrence T. Kass Sean M. Murphy Michael M. Murray Stacey J. Rappaport Richard Sharp Alan J. Stone Errol B. Taylor Andrew E. Tomback Fredrick M. Zullow Washington, DC David S. Cohen Robert J. Koch Andrew M. Leblanc Michael D. Nolan William E. Wallace, III Los Angeles Linda Dakin-Grimm Gregory Evans Jerry L. Marks Daniel Perry Mark Scarsi London David Perkins Offices Worldwide Beijing Frankfurt Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich New York Singapore Tokyo Washington, DC
Litigation PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES POTENTIALLY IMPACT ORGANIZATIONAL COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS
Litigation Bei j i n g Fr a n k f u r t Ho n g Ko n g Lo n d o n Lo s An g e l e s Mu n i c h Ne w Yo r k Si n g a p o r e To k y o Wa s h i n g t o n, DC PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES
More informationLitigation NEW YORK FEDERAL COURT DISMISSES SECURITIES ACT CLAIMS ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS AND UNDER THE PSLRA
Litigation Bei j i n g Fr a n k f u r t Ho n g Ko n g Lo n d o n Lo s An g e l e s Mu n i c h Ne w Yo r k Si n g a p o r e To k y o Wa s h i n g t o n, DC NEW YORK FEDERAL COURT DISMISSES SECURITIES ACT
More informationLitigation NEW TARP WATCHDOG DEMANDS TRANSPARENCY: RECIPIENTS OF TARP FUNDS SHOULD EXPECT HEIGHTENED FOCUS. February 3, 2009
Litigation Bei j i n g Fr a n k f u r t Ho n g Ko n g Lo n d o n Lo s An g e l e s Mu n i c h Ne w Yo r k Si n g a p o r e To k y o Wa s h i n g t o n, DC NEW TARP WATCHDOG DEMANDS TRANSPARENCY: RECIPIENTS
More informationLitigation SECOND CIRCUIT REJECTS CORPORATE LIABILITY UNDER THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE
Milbank Litigation New York Los Angeles Washington, DC London Frankfurt Munich Beijing Hong Kong Singapore Tokyo São Paulo SECOND CIRCUIT REJECTS CORPORATE LIABILITY UNDER THE On September 17, 2010, a
More informationLitigation & Arbitration Group Client Alert: The New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 37(E) A True Safe Harbor from Spoliation Sanctions?
November 24, 2015 CONTACTS Robert Hora Partner +1-212-530-5170 rhora@milbank.com Robert Lindholm Associate +1-212-530-5131 rlindholm@milbank.com Litigation & Arbitration Group Client Alert: The New Federal
More informationLitigation & Arbitration Group Client Alert: London Arbitration A Brief Summary of 2016
19 December, 2016 CONTACT Tom Canning Partner +44-20-7615-3047 tcanning@milbank.com Peter Edworthy Senior Associate +44-20-7615-3070 pedworthy@milbank.com Litigation & Arbitration Group Client Alert: London
More informationLitigation & Arbitration Group Client Alert: A Brief Summary of Recent Developments
23 May 2018 CONTACTS Tom Canning Partner +44-20-7615 3047 tcanning@milbank.com Peter Edworthy Senior Associate +44-20-7615 3070 pedworthy@milbank.com Litigation & Arbitration Group Client Alert: A Brief
More informationLitigation & Arbitration Group Client Alert: FCA Enforcement Notices: UK Supreme Court Judgment Limits Third Party Rights
March 24, 2017 CONTACTS Charles Evans Partner +44-20-7615-3090 cevans@milbank.com William Charles Associate +44-20-7615-3076 wcharles@milbank.com Rebecca Norris Associate +44-20-7615-3042 rnorris@milbank.com
More informationLitigation & Arbitration Group Client Alert: Privilege in cross-border investigations and litigation: The Serious Fraud Office v ENRC Limited
June 13, 2017 CONTACTS Charles Evans Partner +44-20-7615-3090 cevans@milbank.com Katherine R. Goldstein Partner +1-212-530-5138 kgoldstein@milbank.com William Charles Associate +44-20-7615-3076 wcharles@milbank.com
More informationCorporate Governance Group. Client Alert
August 30, 2010 Corporate Governance Group Client Alert Beijing Fr a n k f u r t Ho n g Ko n g Lo n d o n Lo s Ang e l e s Mu n i c h Ne w Yo r k Sã o Pa u l o Si n g a p o r e To k y o Wa s h i n g t
More informationCorporate Governance Group. Client Alert
January 24, 2011 Corporate Governance Group Client Alert Beijing Fr a n k f u r t Ho n g Ko n g Lo n d o n Lo s Ang e l e s Mu n i c h Ne w Yo r k Sã o Pa u l o Si n g a p o r e To k y o Wa s h i n g t
More informationCorporate Governance Group. Client Alert
February 17, 2012 Corporate Governance Group Client Alert Beijing Frankfurt Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich New York São Paulo Singapore Tokyo Washington, DC STOCKHOLDER GRANTED ACCESS TO BOOKS AND
More informationUnited States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver
United States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver By: Roland C. Goss August 31, 2015 On October 6, 2015, the second day of this
More informationConsumer Class Action Waivers Post-Concepcion
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Consumer Class Action Waivers Post-Concepcion Law360,
More informationAfter Stolt-Nielsen, Circuits Split, But AAA Filings Continue
MEALEY S TM International Arbitration Report After Stolt-Nielsen, Circuits Split, But AAA Filings Continue by Gregory A. Litt Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP New York Tina Praprotnik Duke Law
More informationCPR Arbitration Appeal Procedure and Commentary
CPR Arbitration Appeal Procedure and Commentary Revision History 1999 CPR published the Arbitration Appeal Procedure. 2002 Minor editorial revisions; Case law updates added to Commentary. 2007 Minor edits
More informationAMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION CLASS ACTION AND EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION CLASS ACTION AND EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL Elizabeth M Laughlin, Claimant v. Case No.: #74 160 Y 00068 12 VMware, Inc., Respondent Partial Final Award on Clause Construction
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department
Number 1090 October 13, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department Recent Legislative Changes Affecting Pending and Future Projects Under CEQA This legislation is intended
More informationSupreme Court Finds the Discover Bank Rule Preempted by FAA
To read the decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, please click here. Supreme Court Finds the Discover Bank Rule Preempted by FAA April 28, 2011 INTRODUCTION Yesterday, in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
More informationDelaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code
Latham & Watkins Number 1467 February 13, 2013 Finance Department Delaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code Josef S. Athanas, Caroline
More informationSUMMARY. August 27, 2018
United States v. Hoskins Second Circuit Rejects DOJ s Attempt to Expand the Extraterritorial Reach of the FCPA Through Conspiracy and Complicity Doctrines U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Holds
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 5/29/03; pub. order 6/30/03 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ANTONE BOGHOS, Plaintiff and Respondent, H024481 (Santa Clara County Super.
More informationFACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Please note: This sample document is redacted from an actual research and writing project we did for a customer some time ago. It reflects the law as of the date we completed it. Because the law may have
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv AT. versus
Case: 11-15587 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 1 of 16 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-15587 D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-02975-AT SOUTHERN COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES,
More informationA Second Bite At The Arbitration Apple: The AAA s New Optional Appellate Arbitration Rules
A Second Bite At The Arbitration Apple: The AAA s New Optional Appellate Arbitration Rules by Nathan W. Lambeth, Associate Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, L.L.P.* Introduction A construction contractor
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 866 May 14, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department The Third Circuit Clarifies the Class Action Fairness Act s Local Controversy Exception to Federal Jurisdiction In addressing
More informationCalif. Unconscionability Analysis In Conflict With FAA
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Calif. Unconscionability Analysis In Conflict With
More informationArbitration Provisions in Employment Contract May Be Under Fire
Labor and Employment Law Notes Arbitration Provisions in Employment Contract May Be Under Fire The United States Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in the case of Hall Street Associates, L.L.C.
More informationArbitration Agreements and Class Actions
Supreme Court Enforces Arbitration Agreement with Class Action Waiver, Narrowing the Scope of Ability to Avoid Such Agreements SUMMARY The United States Supreme Court yesterday continued its rigorous enforcement
More informationLatham & Watkins Finance Department
Number 1025 May 13, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Pending a decision on BNY s appeal, structured transaction and derivative lawyers should carefully consider the drafting of current
More informationClient Alert. Background on Discovery Requests under Section 1782
Number 1383 August 13, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Eleventh Circuit Holds That Parties to Private International Commercial Arbitral Tribunals May Seek Discovery Assistance
More informationCIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:1073 Priority Send Enter Closed JS-5/ Scan Only TITLE: In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Barry Sonnenfeld v. United Talent Agency, Inc. ========================================================================
More informationOil States, SAS Institute, and New Approaches at the U.S. Patent Office
Oil States, SAS Institute, and New Approaches at the U.S. Patent Office Supreme Court Holds that Challenges to Patent Validity Need Not Proceed Before an Article III Court and Sends More Claims Into Review,
More informationDigest: Vargas v. City of Salinas
Digest: Vargas v. City of Salinas Paul A. Alarcón Opinion by George, C.J., with Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., Moreno, J., and Corrigan, J. Concurring Opinion by Moreno, J., with Werdegar,
More informationUnited States District Court Central District Of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06-cv GAF-RNB
US District Court Civil Docket as of 7/30/2008 Retrieved from the court on Friday, October 03, 2008 United States District Court Central District Of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) CIVIL DOCKET
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department Securities Litigation and Professional Liability Practice
Number 1312 April 4, 2012 Client Alert While the Second Circuit s formulation answers some questions about what transactions fall within the scope of Section 10(b), it also raises a host of new questions
More informationStatus Quo at the PTAB for Now: Supreme Court Makes No Change to IPR; Judicial Review and Claim Construction Standard Remain the Same
Status Quo at the PTAB for Now: Supreme Court Makes No Change to IPR; Judicial Review and Claim Construction Standard Remain the Same CLIENT ALERT June 30, 2016 Maia H. Harris harrism@pepperlaw.com Frank
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT B162625
Filed 2/7/03 (reposted same date to reflect clerical correction) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT ED McMAHON et al.,
More informationComparing Mediation, Arbitration and Litigation
Comparing Mediation, Arbitration and Litigation Generally speaking, the term "mediation" covers any activity in which an impartial third party facilitates an agreement on any matter in the common interest
More informationDigest: Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble and Mallory LLP
Digest: Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble and Mallory LLP Kasey C. Phillips Opinion by Moreno, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court. Issue Does the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act ( MFAA ) 1
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-BEN-BLM Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL TARTAKOVSKY, MOHAMMAD HASHIM NASEEM, ZAHRA JAMSHIDI, MEHDI HORMOZAN, vs. Plaintiffs,
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 1391 September 12, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Federal Circuit Holds that Liability for Induced Infringement Requires Infringement of a Patent, But No Single Entity
More informationClient Alert. Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice. Background
Number 1447 January 2, 2013 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice Steps taken by parties on the eve of filing for bankruptcy are likely
More informationStrategic Considerations for Business Lawyers: Resolving Disputes through ADR or Litigation
Strategic Considerations for Business Lawyers: Resolving Disputes through ADR or Litigation August 22, 2016 This Note illustrates the importance of making well-informed, strategy decisions before deciding
More informationB. Considerations Regarding So-Called Boilerplate Clauses in Cross-Border Commercial Transactions
B. Considerations Regarding So-Called Boilerplate Clauses in Cross-Border Commercial Transactions By: Ava J. Borrasso, Founder, Ava J. Borrasso, P.A., Miami Litigators called to analyze contract disputes
More informationMay 7, By: Christopher M. Mason, Steven M. Richards and Brian M. Childs
May 7, 2010 The United States Supreme Court speaks loudly in Stolt- Nielsen: The Federal Arbitration Action Act does not permit class arbitrations when the parties have been silent on the subject By: Christopher
More informationCONTRACTUAL EXPANSION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ARBITRATION AWARDS IN MISSOURI AFTER HALL STREET AND CABLE CONNECTION
CONTRACTUAL EXPANSION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ARBITRATION AWARDS IN MISSOURI AFTER HALL STREET AND CABLE CONNECTION INTRODUCTION When compared to a formal trial, there are a number of advantages to an arbitration
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,907 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JUSTIN GARBERG and TREVOR GARBERG, Appellees,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,907 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JUSTIN GARBERG and TREVOR GARBERG, Appellees, v. ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING, LLC, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationState of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: July 2, 2009 506301 In the Matter of the Arbitration between MASSENA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent,
More informationArbitration in the Supreme Court: Dire Results, Dire Predictions, Or Limited Holdings?
Arbitration in the Supreme Court: Dire Results, Dire Predictions, Or Limited Holdings? Two cases decided in 2010, and one decision which will be issued in 2011, may substantially affect court involvement
More informationChicken or Egg: Applying the Age- Old Question to Class Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements
Chicken or Egg: Applying the Age- Old Question to Class Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements By Bonnie Burke, Lawrence & Bundy LLC and Christina Tellado, Reed Smith LLP Companies with employees across
More informationLatham & Watkins Finance Department
Number 1147 February 17, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department The Settlement does not affirm or overturn Judge Peck s controversial decision in the US Litigation barring enforcement of
More informationCost and Fee Allocation in Civil Procedure
Cost and Fee Allocation in Civil Procedure According to the Questionnaire this analysis is intended to cover the amount and allocation of legal costs in connection with cases brought under private and
More informationArbitration Post-AT&T Mobiloty v. Concepcion at the American Arbitration Association - A Service Provider's Perspective
Arbitration Law Review Volume 4 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation Article 11 7-1-2012 Arbitration Post-AT&T Mobiloty v. Concepcion at the American Arbitration Association - A Service Provider's Perspective
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
15-3947-cv Jock et al. v. Sterling Jewelers UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department
Number 937 September 22, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department The Local Controversy Exception to the Class Action Fairness Act Preston, Kaufman and Coffey An understanding
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 8/31/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX ROGER BURLAGE et al., v. Petitioners, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF VENTURA COUNTY,
More informationLatham & Watkins Health Care Practice
Number 878 June 8, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Health Care Practice This initiative represents a continuation and expansion of interagency efforts begun more than two years ago and illustrates an
More informationon significant health issues pertaining to their products, and of encouraging the
Number 836 March 17, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Wyeth v. Levine and the Contours of Conflict Preemption Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act The decision in Wyeth reinforces the importance
More informationFILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. v. CASE NO.: 1D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA LENNAR HOMES, INC., Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. v. CASE NO.:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 4/23/14 Certified for partial publication 5/21/14 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE SEAN GLOSTER, Plaintiff and Respondent,
More informationWhat s So Special About Treaty Arbitration?: U.S. Supreme Court Confronts Its First International Investment Treaty Arbitration Case
What s So Special About Treaty Arbitration?: U.S. Supreme Court Confronts Its First International Investment Treaty Arbitration Case BY IGOR V. TIMOFEYEV, JOSEPH R. PROFAIZER & DANIEL PRINCE December 2013
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN BRETT DANIELS and BRETT DANIELS PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 15-CV-1334 SIMON PAINTER, TIMOTHY LAWSON, INTERNATIONAL SPECIAL ATTRACTIONS,
More informationAre Arbitrators Right Even When They Are Wrong?: Second Circuit Upholds Arbitral Ruling Allowing Implicit Reference to Class Arbitration
Arbitration Law Review Volume 4 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation Article 26 7-1-2012 Are Arbitrators Right Even When They Are Wrong?: Second Circuit Upholds Arbitral Ruling Allowing Implicit Reference
More informationDelaware Chancery Court Confirms the Invalidity of Fee-Shifting Bylaws for Stock Corporations
4 January 2017 Practice Group(s): Corporate/M&A Delaware Chancery Court Confirms the Invalidity of Fee-Shifting Bylaws for By Lisa R. Stark and Taylor B. Bartholomew In Solak v. Sarowitz, C.A. No. 12299-CB
More informationMortgage Banking & Consumer Financial Products Alert
Mortgage Banking & Consumer Financial Products Alert May 11, 2011 Authors: R. Bruce Allensworth bruce.allensworth@klgates.com +1. 617.261.3119 Andrew C. Glass andrew.glass@klgates.com +1. 617.261.3107
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation and Finance Departments. Supreme Court Limits Reach of Non-Article III Courts Jurisdiction
Number 1210 July 5, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation and Finance Departments Supreme Court Limits Reach of Non-Article III Courts Jurisdiction Under Article III, the judicial power of the
More informationOctober by: Jasmine J. Abou-Kassem
in the news Commercial Litigation October 2013 Enforcing Your Arbitration Agreement: Why, How, and Whether by: Jasmine J. Abou-Kassem In this Issue: What Law Applies to Arbitration Clauses?... 1 What Do
More informationDispute Resolution Service. Guide to Arbitration Clauses
Dispute Resolution Service Guide to Arbitration Clauses NOTES B AHLA Dispute Resolution Service INTRODUCTION This guide does not provide legal advice and is not a substitute for such advice. Federal and
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (San Joaquin) ----
Filed 12/28/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ---- SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1021, v. Plaintiff and
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Roland Industries, LLC v. Murphy & Durieu LP, 2005-Ohio-2305.] COURT OF APPEALS HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROLAND INDUSTRIES, L.L.C. Plaintiff-Appellant -vs- MURPHY & DURIEU
More informationManifest Disregard Standard of Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards: No Longer Good Law?
Manifest Disregard Standard of Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards: No Longer Good Law? BY JAMES E. BERGER AND VICTORIA ASHWORTH Introduction On July 7, 2008, Judge Richard J. Holwell of the U.S. District
More informationArgued May 31, 2017 Decided August 11, Before Judges Vernoia and Moynihan (Judge Vernoia concurring).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationCalifornia Judges Association OPINION NO. 38. (Originally issued: June 11, 1988) RETIRED JUDGES: JUDICIAL ASSIGNMENT WHILE ACTIVE MEMBERS OF STATE BAR
California Judges Association OPINION NO. 38 (Originally issued: June 11, 1988) RETIRED JUDGES: JUDICIAL ASSIGNMENT WHILE ACTIVE MEMBERS OF STATE BAR AUTHORITATIVE: Canons 2A, 4D(2), 4E(1), 4F, 4G, 4C(2),
More informationDecember 10, Cohen v. DIRECTV, No. S177734
December 10, 2009 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO DEPUBLICATION REQUEST California Rules of Court, rule 8.1125(b) Honorable Ronald M. George, Chief Justice Honorable Joyce L. Kennard, Associate
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE B241048
Filed 8/28/14 Cooper v. Wedbush Morgan Securities CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
More informationCase 3:11-cv HZ Document 75 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 14
Case 3:11-cv-01358-HZ Document 75 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON GOLDEN TEMPLE OF OREGON, LLC an Oregon Limited Liability Company, v. Plaintiff,
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
No. 16-1337 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DONTE LAMAR JONES, v. Petitioner, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari To the Virginia Supreme Court REPLY IN
More informationBell Prods. v. Hosp. Bldg. & Equip. Co.
No Shepard s Signal As of: January 26, 2017 12:14 PM EST Bell Prods. v. Hosp. Bldg. & Equip. Co. United States District Court for the Northern District of California January 23, 2017, Decided; January
More informationJanuary
THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA REAFFIRMS THE ECONOMIC LOSS DOCTRINE, DECLINES TO IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON DEVELOPERS AND CONTRACTORS FOR NEGLIGENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPERTY DAMAGE OR PERSONAL INJURY
More informationThe Supreme Court Adopts the Gartenberg Standard to Determine Whether an Investment Adviser Breached its Fiduciary Duty in Approving Fees
To read the decision in Jones v. Harris Associates L.P., please click here. The Supreme Court Adopts the Gartenberg Standard to Determine Whether an Investment Adviser Breached its Fiduciary Duty in Approving
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 2/3/16 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO WILSON DANTE PERRY, B264027 v. Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles
More informationInterpreting Appropriate and Necessary Reasonably under the Clean Air Act: Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency
Ecology Law Quarterly Volume 44 Issue 2 Article 16 9-15-2017 Interpreting Appropriate and Necessary Reasonably under the Clean Air Act: Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency Maribeth Hunsinger Follow
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FEBRUARY 1999 SESSION
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FILED June 4, 1999 FEBRUARY 1999 SESSION Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk GARY WAYNE LOWE, ) ) C.C.A. No. 03C01-9806-CR-00222 Appellant,
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED AUG 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FRANK VARELA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated,
More informationCOMPELLING ARBITRATION: WHO KNOWS THE RULES TO APPLY? By Judge William F. Highberger. Superior Court Judge, Los Angeles (CA) Superior Court
COMPELLING ARBITRATION: WHO KNOWS THE RULES TO APPLY? By Judge William F. Highberger Superior Court Judge, Los Angeles (CA) Superior Court Trial courts continue to receive very inconsistent direction from
More informationI Won t See You in Court: Arbitration Options for Hospitals
I Won t See You in Court: Arbitration Options for Hospitals Presented by Martin L. Fineman & Gabrielle Goldstein September 16, 2010 Today s Speakers Gabrielle B. Goldstein Counsels health care providers,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 16-3830, Document 202-1, 12/19/2017, 2197329, Page1 of 7 16-3830-cv United States v. Broadcast Music, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER
More informationCommercial Litigation. More Relief for Business: U.S. Supreme Court Continues to Restrict Far-Reaching Claims. in the news. In this Issue: July 2013
in the news Commercial Litigation July 2013 More Relief for Business: U.S. Supreme Court Continues to Restrict Far-Reaching Claims In this Issue: Comcast Corp v. Behrand Take-Away from Comcast Corp v.
More informationMichigan v. Environmental Protection Agency: Cost Considerations in Agency Regulations
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency: Cost Considerations in Agency Regulations Supreme Court Holds that EPA Is Required to Consider Costs When Determining Whether Regulating Certain Power Plants
More informationARBITRATION IS BACK ON THE DOCKET: THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THE ENFORCEABILITY OF CLASS-ACTION WAIVERS IN EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS
27 January 2017 Practice Groups: Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Labor, Employment and Workplace Safety THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THE ENFORCEABILITY OF CLASS-ACTION WAIVERS IN EMPLOYMENT
More informationInternational Arbitration
c International Arbitration F U L B R I G H T A L E R T October 3, 2008 Visit Practice Site Protocol for E-Disclosure in Arbitration Issued Subscribe by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Contact Us
More informationInherent Authority of Arbitration Panels to Grant. Attorney s Fees and Costs. Robert M. Hall
Inherent Authority of Arbitration Panels to Grant Attorney s Fees and Costs By Robert M. Hall [Mr. Hall is a former law firm partner, a former insurance and reinsurance executive and acts as an expert
More informationBe sure to enforce the minimum standards afforded to employees in arbitration. See Maximizing, Next Page
Maximizing your experience in arbitrating the employment case: What consumer attorneys need to know when your clients are required to arbitrate their employment claim Arbitration is now a fact of life
More informationLatham & Watkins Corporate Department. The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements
Number 1044 June 10, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Corporate Department Second Circuit Wades Into the PSLRA Safe Harbor The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements Specific,
More informationBuckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna*
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna* I. INTRODUCTION In a decision that lends further credence to the old adage that consumers should always beware of the small print, the United
More informationAdopting AAA Rules to Govern Arbitration Proceedings May - or May Not - Allow U.S. Arbitrators to Decide Gateway Questions of Arbitrability
Adopting AAA Rules to Govern Arbitration Proceedings May - or May Not - Allow U.S. Arbitrators to Decide Gateway Questions of Arbitrability ALERT March 2019 Richard W. Foltz Jr. foltzr@pepperlaw.com Ryan
More informationEmployment Discrimination Litigation
Federal Appellate Court Allows Sex Discrimination Class Action Encompassing Up To 1.5 Million Class Members SUMMARY On April 26, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which encompasses
More informationDIVISION ONE. In re the Marriage of: No. 1 CA-CV
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In re the Marriage of: HELEN YU-WEN CHANG, Petitioner/Appellee, v. WILLIAM MOLIM SIU, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 12-0798 Appeal from the Superior Court
More information