On June 15, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requires California courts to honor agreements to arbitrate individual claims under the California Labor Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq. (“PAGA”).  Although Viking River Cruises is a significant win for California employers, it remains to be seen whether and to what extent the full scope of that win will be durable.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Hands California Employers a Significant (if Qualified) Win

On May 23, 2022, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a party opposing arbitration is not required to demonstrate prejudice to show that the other party has waived its contractual arbitration rights. 

Before today’s decision, nine federal courts of appeals had adopted the rule that a “party can waive its arbitration right by litigating only when its conduct has prejudiced the other side.”  Morgan v. Sundance, 596 U.S. __ (2022).  Two other circuits had held no showing of prejudice was required.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Decision Makes It Easier to Waive Right to Arbitration

Where are corporations subject to general jurisdiction?  The answer to that question matters a lot: if a corporation is subject to general jurisdiction in a state, anyone can sue it there on any claim.  Traditionally, though, corporations have been subject to general jurisdiction in only two states:  where they are incorporated and where they maintain their principal place of business.

The Supreme Court might now be poised to expand that list.  On April 25, the Court granted certiorari in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., a case that asks whether states can require corporations to consent to personal jurisdiction as a condition of registering to do business in a state. If the Court says “yes,” that decision may pave the way to a new era of forum-shopping.

Continue Reading Supreme Court May Expand Where Corporations Are Subject to General Personal Jurisdiction

Last year, in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021), the Supreme Court confirmed that every class member must have Article III standing to recover damages in a class action.  As we have previously written, the Court’s decision – summed up as “[n]o concrete harm, no standing” – presents major obstacles to plaintiffs asserting class claims based on “bare procedural violation[s]” of statutes.  But Ramirez left unanswered some important questions about class action standing, and we offer some thoughts here on what the answers are likely to be.

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Standing at Class Certification After TransUnion v. Ramirez

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that may make it easier for companies to be found to have waived arbitration requirements in their contracts. Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. gives the Court an opportunity to resolve a circuit split over whether a party can be deemed to have waived its right to compel

The Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 2021 WL 2599472 (U.S. June 25, 2021), is one of the most significant class-action decisions from the Supreme Court in recent years. It expands the scope of the Court’s earlier Article III standing decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) confirming that, to recover damages in a class action, every class member must satisfy the standing requirement of Article III. The Court’s decision will inevitably make it more difficult for plaintiffs to certify a class asserting claims based on “bare violations” of statutes that do not cause concrete harm to putative class members.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Confirms That Every Class Member Must Have Article III Standing to Recover Damages, Creating Additional Obstacles to Class Certification