No. 23-1130
Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. v. California, et al.
Amici (1)
Tags: arbitration-agreements eeoc-v-waffle-house federal-arbitration-act individual-relief litigation-claims monetary-relief preemption state-law state-officials
Key Terms:
Arbitration ClassAction JusticiabilityDoctri
Arbitration ClassAction JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2024-09-30
Related Cases:
23-1132
(Vide)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Does the FAA allow state officials to litigate claims for monetary relief on behalf of people who agreed to arbitrate those claims?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the FAA allow state officials to litigate claims for monetary relief on behalf of people who agreed to arbitrate those claims?
Docket Entries
2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-07-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-07-10
Reply of Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. submitted.
2024-07-10
Reply of petitioners Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
2024-06-20
Brief of People of the State of California in opposition submitted.
2024-05-20
Brief amicus curiae of California Employment Law Council filed.
2024-05-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 20, 2024, for all respondents. See Rule 30.1.
2024-05-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 20, 2024 to June 19, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-04-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 20, 2024)
Attorneys
California Employment Law Council
Maurice Baskin — Littler Mendelson P.C., Amicus
People of the State of California
Joshua A. Klein — California Department of Justice, Respondent
Professor George A. Bermann
Retail Litigation Center, Inc.; California Retail Association
Jessica Lynn Ellsworth — Hogan Lovells US, LLP, Amicus
Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.
Theane D. Evangelis — Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Petitioner