Test your legal knowledge with these two quizzes on recent California court ruli...

Podcast Beta

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What is the basis of the court's decision regarding public injunctive relief in arbitration?

A waiver of a claimant's statutory right

A per se rule against bilateral arbitration agreements

A matter of contract interpretation (correct)

A violation of the Federal Arbitration Act

What cases did the court cite to support its decision regarding public injunctive relief in arbitration?

Ring v. Delaware Life Insurance Co.

Maynez and Maybaum

Federal Arbitration Act

DiCarlo, McArdle, and MacClelland (correct)

Did Ring's severability clause argument succeed in court?

The court did not consider it

No (correct)

Not mentioned in the text

Yes

What did the court rule regarding the trial court's jurisdiction to consider Ring's motion for reconsideration?

The trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion Signup and view all the answers

What is the basis of the appellate court's review of judgments or orders?

The correctness of a judgment or order as of the time of its rendition Signup and view all the answers

What was Ring's argument regarding the version of its terms of service that governed the arbitration provision?

It did not identify which version governed Signup and view all the answers

Did the trial court accept Ring's argument that Exhibit K controlled the arbitration provision?

No Signup and view all the answers

What did the court emphasize about its decision regarding public injunctive relief in arbitration?

It does not mean that arbitration agreements are unenforceable or that public injunctive relief cannot be sought in arbitration Signup and view all the answers

What was the outcome of the appeal of the motion to compel arbitration?

The order denying the motion to compel arbitration is affirmed Signup and view all the answers

According to the court's ruling, can arbitration agreements waive public injunctive relief?

No, they cannot waive public injunctive relief in arbitration. Signup and view all the answers

What cases did the court cite to support its ruling?

DiCarlo, McArdle, and MacClelland Signup and view all the answers

Did Ring argue that its arbitration provision allows for public injunctive relief?

Yes, but the court disagreed with Ring. Signup and view all the answers

What is the basis of the court's decision on the enforceability of the arbitration provision?

The court's interpretation of the specific arbitration provision at issue. Signup and view all the answers

What is the court's ruling on Ring's argument regarding the severability clause in the arbitration provision?

The court disagrees with Ring and rules that the entire claims cannot be arbitrated. Signup and view all the answers

What is the court's ruling on Ring's request to supplement the record?

The court finds that there was no abuse of discretion in denying Ring's request. Signup and view all the answers

What is the basis for the trial court's lack of jurisdiction to consider Ring's motion for reconsideration?

The trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Signup and view all the answers

Does the court's decision mean that arbitration agreements are unenforceable?

No, the court's decision does not render all arbitration agreements unenforceable. Signup and view all the answers

What is the outcome of the court's ruling on the appeal of the motion to compel arbitration?

The motion to compel arbitration is denied. Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

California Court Rules Arbitration Agreements Cannot Waive Public Injunctive Relief

Ring argues that its arbitration provision allows for public injunctive relief, but the court disagrees and rules that the provision does not permit such relief.
The court cites previous cases, including DiCarlo, McArdle, and MacClelland, that interpret similar arbitration provisions to preclude public injunctive relief in arbitration.
Ring also cites Maynez and Maybaum, two cases that allow for public injunctive relief in arbitration, but the court finds that they do not persuade it to depart from the previous rulings.
The court notes that its decision is based on a matter of contract interpretation rather than a per se rule that bilateral arbitration agreements requiring arbitration of public injunctive relief are unenforceable.
The court rules that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt its decision because it does not prohibit the arbitration of a particular type of claim.
The court explains that its decision is based on the arbitration provision's failure to allow for public injunctive relief in arbitration, not on a waiver of a claimant's statutory right to seek such relief in any forum.
Ring argues that the arbitration provision's severability clause means that the parts of plaintiffs' claims involving public injunctive relief should be severed from arbitration, but the court disagrees and rules that the entire claims cannot be arbitrated.
Ring contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying its request to supplement the record, but the court finds that there was no abuse of discretion.
Ring also argues that the trial court was incorrect in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Ring's motion for reconsideration after Ring filed its notice of appeal, but the court rules that section 916(a) applies to appeals from denials of motions to compel arbitration.
The court notes that the parties did not dispute the validity of the arbitration agreement itself, only its interpretation regarding public injunctive relief.
The court emphasizes that its decision does not mean that arbitration agreements are unenforceable or that public injunctive relief cannot be sought in arbitration.
The court concludes that the arbitration provision at issue does not permit public injunctive relief in arbitration and that plaintiffs' claims cannot be arbitrated.Appeal of Arbitration Denied Due to Lack of Jurisdiction
An appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration automatically stays all further trial court proceedings on the merits.
The stay under section 916(a) applies to any “trial court proceeding [that] directly or indirectly seeks to ‘enforce, vacate or modify [the] appealed judgment or order.’ ”
The trial court correctly found it lacked jurisdiction to decide Ring’s motion for reconsideration because the motion sought to vacate and modify the order being appealed.
The trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to continue to entertain the reconsideration motion, as of the time that the appellant filed its appeal.
Appellate courts do not make factual findings; we review ‘ “the correctness of a judgment [or order] as of the time of its rendition.” ’
To the extent Ring’s argument is that the trial court erred—and was required as a matter of law to find that the December 2020 version of the arbitration provision applies to plaintiffs’ claims—we reject this argument.
In its moving papers, Ring did not identify which of 10 versions of its terms of service it believed governed.
When it quoted the arbitration provision, Ring cited Exhibits C and G and never specifically cited Exhibit K.
Ring first asserted Exhibit K should control in its reply papers.
A trial court has discretion whether “to accept arguments or evidence made for the first time in reply.”
Thus, it was within the trial court’s discretion to reject Ring’s new argument that Exhibit K controlled.
The order denying the motion to compel arbitration is affirmed.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

Test your legal knowledge with these two quizzes on recent California court rulings. The first quiz focuses on the ruling that arbitration agreements cannot waive public injunctive relief. Learn about the court's interpretation of similar arbitration provisions and their decision based on contract interpretation. The second quiz covers the denial of an appeal for arbitration due to lack of jurisdiction. Test your understanding of the stay under section 916(a) and the trial court's jurisdiction to entertain a reconsideration motion. Sharpen your legal skills with these quizzes