BLOOMINGDALES V. VITOLO
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Term: October 2016
Lower Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state law rule that prohibits enforcement of a pre-dispute arbitration agreement with respect to a state statutory claim unless the agreement allows the claimant to pursue representative relief on behalf of all similarly-situated individuals.
The RLC filed a solo brief in support of Bloomingdales' petition for certiorari in a case asking the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the rule announced in Iskanian that agreements requiring individualized arbitration of claims arising under California's Private Attorneys Genera Act (PAGA) are enforceable. The RLC's brief explains the importance of ensuring that the California judiciary does not use the lack of a circuit split to enable PAGA to circumvent the Court’s pro-arbitration precedent and the value that arbitration agreements provide especially to national retailers and their employees.
The Court denied the petition for certiorari.
Procedural History and Case Documents
- Bloomingdale's petition for certiorari filed March 2017