Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Class Action Waivers in California: Discover Bank and Employment Arbitration
It is a matter of significant controversy and a subject of much litigation whether the U.S. Supreme Court's Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) jurisprudence enforcing pre-dispute arbitration agreements, regardless of whether the underlying dispute derives from contract, statute or public policy, extends to situations where individuals seek to bring class claims on behalf of large groups either in court or before the arbitral tribunal. Mostly, the decisions have supported this extension, provided the arbitration agreement authorizes the decision-maker to apply statutory as well as contract law and to award statutory remedies for proven violations. Because plaintiffs' lawyers have responded to these developments by bringing class claims in arbitration, despite silence in the underlying agreement whether the arbitrator possesses “class certification” authority, a number of companies have inserted express class action waivers in their arbitration programs. A recent decision of the California Supreme Court places in question the legal effectiveness of this response, at least in that state and for “consumer”-type claims.
Discover Bank v. Superior Court (Boehr), 36 Cal. 4th 148 (June 27, 2005) expands on earlier state unconscionability precedent to hold unenforceable arbitration agreements purporting to limit the ability of consumers to bring class action lawsuits. Discover Bank was a consumer credit case. While the decision raises issues for companies operating in other jurisdictions and for some non-consumer claims, the California high court's assumptions in that decision should not be imported into the employment arbitration context.
Discover Bank
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.