The U.S. Supreme Court in a near-unanimous decision in Viking v. Moriana has agreed that claims brought under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) can be compelled to arbitration.
As the U.S. Supreme Court considers its decision in Viking v. Moriana, a case involving the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), it’s raising questions about what the future of the controversial law will look like.
Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court took place late last month in Viking v. Moriana, a case that questions whether California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) is exempt from the rules of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
A new amicus brief filed with U.S. Supreme Court in Viking v. Moriana argues that California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) is not exempt from the rules of the Federal Arbitration Act.
An amicus brief by the California Business and Industrial Alliance (CABIA) has been distributed to the U.S. Supreme Court prior to oral arguments later this month in Viking v. Moriana, a case involving the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
A host of state and national business groups have provided amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Viking v. Moriana case, arguing that litigation filed under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) isn’t exempt from the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
The following cases categorized as "consumer credit collections cmpl (crc 3.740)" were on the docket in the Contra Costa Superior Court on Dec. 28. All case details are allegations only and should not be taken as fact:
The Contra Costa Superior Court reported the following activity in the suit brought by Debt Management Partners, LLC against Candance Faatalale on Dec. 28: 'Clerk's Tickler On Consumer Credit Collections Case-Check For Proof Of Service Filed Within 180 Days Of Filing Complaint'.
In a new development in the California Trucking Association (CTA) case seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court, the court has asked the Solicitor General to provide input, to help determine whether the high court will hear the CTA’s case.
The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is due to decide whether to grant en banc review to a case involving Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preemption of California’s AB 51 law on arbitration agreements.
The following cases categorized as "complaint" were on the docket in the Contra Costa Superior Court on Oct. 1. All case details are allegations only and should not be taken as fact:
The Contra Costa Superior Court reported the following activity in the suit brought by Nubia L. Aguilera against Faa Concord H, Inc., Juanito Tiulentino, Karim Tabellout and Sonic Automotive, Inc. on Sept. 22: 'Further Case Management Conference'.
The Contra Costa Superior Court reported the following activity in the suit brought by Nubia L. Aguilera against Faa Concord H, Inc., Juanito Tiulentino, Karim Tabellout and Sonic Automotive, Inc. on Sept. 21: 'File Returned To Court Records, Martinez'.
The Contra Costa Superior Court reported the following activity in the suit brought by Nubia L. Aguilera against Faa Concord H, Inc., Juanito Tiulentino, Karim Tabellout and Sonic Automotive, Inc. on Oct. 1: 'Check For Dismissal On Conditional Settlement'.
A federal appellate court in a 2-1 decision has held that particular segments of a California law (AB 51) that prohibits mandatory arbitration cannot be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
The following cases categorized as "consumer credit collections cmpl (crc 3.740)" were on the docket in the Contra Costa Superior Court on Sept. 13. All case details are allegations only and should not be taken as fact:
