|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link Courts, Not Arbitrators, to Decide Issue of Unconscionability in First Instance, Ninth Circuit Rules.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 21, 2009 Reversing an order compelling arbitration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, where a party specifically challenges an arbitration agreement as unconscionable, the court, not the arbitrator, must decide the issue of unconscionability in the first instance, even if the arbitration agreement provides otherwise. Jackson v. Rent-A-Center West, Inc., No. 07-16164 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2009). The Court also found that the agreement’s fee-sharing provision was not unconscionable. However, because the district court failed to address whether other provisions in the agreement also were unconscionable, the Court remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Report Link Supreme Court Rules that Arbitrable Counterclaim is No Key to Door of Federal Courthouse.Jackson Lewis LLP - March 17, 2009 The U.S. Supreme Court has held that in determining whether to order arbitration, federal courts should “look through” a petition to compel arbitration to determine whether it is predicated on a controversy that “arises under” federal law in accordance with the so-called well-pleaded complaint rule. This rule requires federal courts to examine the allegations and claims in the complaint to determine whether jurisdiction exists; jurisdiction cannot be predicated on defenses or counterclaims alone, even if they are subject to an agreement to arbitrate. Thus, a federal court may not entertain a petition to compel arbitration based on the contents of a counterclaim if the underlying substantive controversy otherwise does not qualify for federal court adjudication. Report Link Supreme Court Holds that FAA Overrides Conflicting State Law Jurisdictional Provision.Ford & Harrison LLP - February 25, 2008 Citing the national policy favoring arbitration established in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and Southland Corp. v. Keating, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the contractual agreement to arbitrate disputes preempts contrary state law frameworks. Writing for the Court in Preston v. Ferrer, decided on February 20, 2008, Justice Ginsberg held that the FAA overrides state laws that would lodge primary jurisdiction in another forum beside arbitration, regardless of whether that forum is judicial or administrative.
|
ArticlesFound: 3 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
2010 Ushers In Many Important Changes to Workplace Laws
Columbia
November 20, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATESacramento
December 1, 2009 Shaw ValenzaMonthly Webinar: Preventing Workplace Harassment (California and National)Webinar
December 1, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplySan Francisco
December 1, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsThe Constangy Management Training Center "Employment Law 201"Tampa
December 2, 2009 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyOntario
December 2, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsAudio Conference: Employee Caregivers Dealing With DementiaAudio Conference
December 2, 2009 Young ConawayClients, Adversaries and Witnesses: The Ethics of Communication in a Fast-Paced Legal World Web CastWebinar
December 4, 2009 Ford & HarrisonTaking Executive Compensation Hostage; What To DoWebinar
December 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB 1825 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
December 9, 2009 Shaw Valenza |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds