Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed a class action suit to recover unpaid overtime wages from her former employer, Bloomingdale's. The district court granted Bloomingdale's motion to compel arbitration, determining that shortly after being hired by Bloomingdale's, plaintiff entered into a valid, written arbitration agreement and that all of her claims fell within the scope of that agreement. The court concluded that plaintiff had the right to opt out of the arbitration agreement, and had she done so she would be free to pursue this class action in court. Having freely elected to arbitrate employment-related disputes on an individual basis, without interference from Bloomingdale's, she could not claim that enforcement of the agreement violated either the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. 101 et seq., or the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that the arbitration agreement was valid and, under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., it must be enforced according to its terms. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit alleging that Nordstrom violated various state and federal employment laws by precluding employees from bringing most class action lawsuits in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. Nordstrom, relying on the revised arbitration policy in its employee handbook, sought to compel plaintiff to submit to individual arbitration of her claims. The district court denied Nordstrom's motion to compel. The court concluded that Nordstrom satisfied the minimal requirements under California law for providing employees with reasonable notice of a change to its employee handbook, and Nordstrom was not bound to inform plaintiff that her continued employment after receiving the letter constituted acceptance of new terms of employment. Accordingly, the court concluded that Nordstrom and plaintiff entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate disputes on an individual basis. The court reversed and remanded for the district court to address the issue of unconscionably. View "Davis v. Nordstorm, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and supplemental state law against the County and other County officials, alleging that they wrongfully investigated, prosecuted, and harassed plaintiffs in retaliation for plaintiffs' opposition to the actions of the County Sheriff, County Attorney, and their deputies. At issue was whether federal or state privilege law governs the admissibility of evidence of an alleged settlement reached during mediation of federal and state law claims. The court concluded that the privilege law governs, but that the County waived any available privilege. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's enforcement of the settlement agreement reached in mediation. View "Wilcox v. Arpaio" on Justia Law

After Reno's financing collapsed, Reno initiated an arbitration before FINRA to resolve its claims against Goldman arising out of their contractual relationship. Goldman then filed this action to enjoin the FINRA arbitration. The court concluded that it, rather than FINRA, must determine the arbitrability of this dispute. Although Reno qualified as Goldman's customer under FINRA Rule 12200, the court held that Reno disclaimed its right to FINRA arbitration by agreeing to the forum selection clauses in the parties' contracts. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction and final judgment in favor of Reno. Despite Goldman's "overwhelming likelihood of success on the merits," the court remanded to the district court to consider the remaining Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. factors. View "Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that Consumerinfo had violated various California consumer protection laws. At issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear appeals from district court orders staying judicial proceedings and compelling arbitration of the named plaintiffs' individual claims. The court concluded that the structure of the statute suggested that Congress intended to remove appellate jurisdiction from all orders listed in 9 U.S.C. 16(b)(1)-(4), regardless of whether any such order could otherwise be deemed collateral. The history of section 16 also demonstrated that Congress intended 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) to provide the sole avenue to immediate appeal of an order staying judicial proceedings and compelling arbitration. Therefore, the courts joined its sister circuits in concluding that section 1292(b) provided the sole route for immediate appeal of an order staying proceedings and compelling arbitration. Accordingly, the court dismissed plaintiffs' appeal. Alternatively, the court denied plaintiffs' petition for mandamus where the district court's well-reasoned decision was plainly not a usurpation of judicial power or a clear abuse of discretion. View "Johnson v. ConsumerInfo.com, Inc." on Justia Law

After MediVas defaulted on a loan, Marubeni foreclosed on promissory notes held by MediVas and threatened to foreclose on additional MediVas assets. MediVas and others filed suit against Marubeni in state court, raising numerous state law claims. Marubeni, invoking a contractual arbitration clause, removed the action to federal court and moved to compel arbitration and initiated arbitration against plaintiffs. At issue was whether an order compelling arbitration was appealable when the district court neither explicitly dismissed or explicitly stayed the action. The court held that such an order implicitly stayed the action and thus was not "a final decision with respect to an arbitration" under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 16(a)(3); the court adopted a rebuttable presumption that an order compelling arbitration but not explicitly dismissing the underlying claims stayed the action as to those claims pending the completion of the arbitration; and the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "MediVas, LLC v. Marubeni Corp." on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a protracted dispute over attorneys' fees awarded in the Wal-Mart wage and hour multidistrict litigation. Appellants, the Burton Group, appealed from the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award allocating attorneys' fees, contending that the district court erred in declining to vacate the award under section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 10(a). The court concluded that a non-appealability clause in an arbitration agreement that eliminates all federal court review of arbitration awards, including review under section 10(a) of the FAA, was not enforceable. Accordingly, the court proceeded to the merits of the Burton Group's claims, and affirmed the district court's confirmation of the arbitration award in a memorandum disposition filed contemporaneously with this opinion. View "In re: Wal-Mart" on Justia Law

After plaintiff purchased a background check and report from Intelius on the Internet, plaintiff discovered that Adaptive, a separate company from Intelius, had been charging his credit card each month for a Family Safety Report. Plaintiff and others filed suit against Intelius in state court. Intelius then filed a third-party complaint against Adaptive. Adaptive filed a motion to compel arbitration of both Intelius's and plaintiff's claims. The court held that plaintiff did not enter into a contract with Adaptive to purchase the Family Safety Report, and did not enter into a contract with Adaptive to arbitrate. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to compel. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Lee v. Intelius Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against JEM, a "back-end" debt-relief company, and others, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, and breach of Washington consumer protection statutes. On appeal, JEM appealed from the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded that the district court correctly decided that it, rather than an arbitrator, should decide whether the arbitration clause in the attorney retainer agreement was unconscionable. The court also concluded that the district court properly decided, using non-preempted Washington law, that the arbitration clause was unenforceable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Smith v. JEM Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Ralphs alleging violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. On appeal, Ralphs challenged the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded that Ralphs' arbitration policy was unconscionable under California law. The court concluded that Ralphs' arbitration was procedurally unconscionable where, among other things, agreeing to Ralphs' policy was a condition of applying for employment and the terms were not disclosed to plaintiff until three weeks after she had agreed to be bound by it. In regards to substantive unconscionability, the court concluded, among other things, that Ralphs' terms required that the arbitrator impose significant costs on the employee up front, regardless of the merits of the employee's claims, and severely limited the authority of the arbitrator to allocate arbitration costs in the award. Further, the state law supporting such a conclusion was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 2. Accordingly, the court affirmed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Chavarria v. Ralphs" on Justia Law