No. 21-742
Response RequestedRelisted (3)
Tags: bilateral-arbitration federal-arbitration-act iskanian-precedent iskanian-v-cls-transportation preemption private-attorneys-general-act recurring-issue representative-claims
Latest Conference:
2022-06-23
(distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Does the Federal Arbitration Act require the enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that a worker cannot raise representative claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act, thereby preempting the contrary holding in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC, 327 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014)?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the Federal Arbitration Act require the enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that a worker cannot raise representative claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act, thereby preempting the contrary holding in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC, 327 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014)?
Docket Entries
2022-07-29
JUDGMENT ISSUED
2022-06-27
Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U. S. ___ (2022).
2022-06-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/23/2022.
2022-03-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/18/2022.
2022-02-14
Brief of respondent Million Seifu in opposition filed.
2022-01-13
Response Requested. (Due February 14, 2022)
2022-01-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/21/2022.
2021-11-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 20, 2021)
Attorneys
Lyft Inc.
Felix Shafir — Horvitz and Levy LLP, Petitioner
Million Seifu
Shannon Liss-Riordan — Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Respondent