Nationwide FLSA Lawsuits Just Got Harder—Here’s Why - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
The Labor Law Insider: How Arbitrations Help Preserve Labor-Management Peace, Part I
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: “Accidental Arbitration” -- A New Theory that Would Rein in Consumer Arbitration Clauses and the Scope of the FAA
#WorkforceWednesday®: PAGA in California, NLRB Authority, New Employment Laws in 2025 - Employment Law This Week®
Recent Developments in California's Arbitration Landscape — FCRA Focus Podcast
Dogecoin’s Day in Court
#WorkforceWednesday® - Key SCOTUS Decisions This Term for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 14: Resolving Cross-Border Conflicts Through International Arbitration
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: A Discussion of Industry and Consumer Perspectives on Mass Arbitration
Navigating Mass Arbitration: New Rules and Strategies — The Consumer Finance Podcast
#WorkforceWednesday: Avoiding Legal Illusions - Crafting Effective Arbitration Agreements - Employment Law This Week®
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: A Look at a New Approach to Consumer Contracts
Do You Need an Arbitration Clause in Your Energy Contract? Pros and Cons
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Reasons Why the CFPB Should Deny the Petition for Rulemaking on Post-Dispute Consumer Arbitration Agreements
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: A Deep Dive into Mass Arbitration, with Special Guest Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Rules on PAGA, Fifth Circuit Rules on COVID-19 Under WARN, Illinois Expands Bereavement Leave - Employment Law This Week®
California Employment News: US Supreme Court “Viking River” Decision Brings PAGA Relief for CA Employers
Employment Law Now VI-116-Top 10 Employment Issues To Consider For The Summer Kick-Off
3 Key Takeaways | Drafting & Navigating Dispute Resolution Clauses
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC COVID-19 Charges Surge, NYC’s Pay Transparency Law, SCOTUS Considers PAGA - Employment Law This Week®
I have some good news for California employers seeking to enforce arbitration agreements. The California Supreme Court just held that non-payment of arbitration fees does not automatically waive the right to arbitrate....more
The California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court addressed whether California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, which requires the party that drafted the arbitration agreement to pay...more
After years of appellate cases and several rulings holding California employers to the very strict payment standards of the California Arbitration Act (CAA), the California Supreme Court has, for the first time, addressed...more
On August 11, 2025, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in the matter of Dana Hohenshelt v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not preempt the California...more
On August 11, 2025, the Supreme Court of California ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt a state statute requiring employers to timely pay arbitration fees or forfeit the right to arbitration. The...more
In a highly anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court in Dana Hohenshelt v. Golden State Foods Corp. relieves some pressure for employers, holding that late payment of arbitration fees does not result in an automatic...more
The California Supreme Court recently held in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt a California law that penalizes businesses that have consumer and employee arbitration...more
Background: The Thirty-Day Arbitration Fee Rule - In 2019, the California legislature amended the California Arbitration Act (CAA) to require the party who drafts an arbitration agreement to pay all required arbitration...more
The California Supreme Court’s decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court marks an important moment for arbitration in California, particularly in the context of consumer disputes, employment disputes, and mass arbitrations....more
On Aug. 11, 2025, in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98. The statute, intended to deter the...more
The California Supreme Court issued its decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, addressing whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California's rule governing late payment of arbitration fees, Cal. Code Civ....more
In its August 11, 2025 decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (S284498), the California Supreme Court clarified the reach of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98, the 30-day arbitration fee payment rule. While...more
The Supreme Court of California is set to decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a California statute that requires employers to forfeit the right to arbitrate disputes with employees if arbitration fees...more
In our previous article, “Pay Up or Lawsuit Up: The 30-Day Countdown That’s Fueling Arbitration Disputes,” we explored the legal and practical challenges posed by California’s 30-day arbitration fee payment rule, codified in...more
Since our last coverage of “headless PAGA lawsuits”—i.e., lawsuits in which a plaintiff disavows his individual PAGA claim and opts to pursue the claim only on behalf of others—significant developments have further...more
Online businesses are increasingly facing a wave of arbitration demands under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) and similar laws. Enterprising law firms have been at the forefront of this trend, filing claims on...more
Less than a year ago, the California Supreme Court in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. opined, in the context of employment arbitration agreements, that there is no bright line rule that requires a court to refuse...more
Join host Dave Gettings and guest Elizabeth Holt Andrews in this episode of FCRA Focus as they delve into the complexities of arbitration in California, a frequent battleground for FCRA cases. Elizabeth, an appellate attorney...more
Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) U.S. 639 and the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 1104, when...more
California is famously inhospitable to arbitration. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down California laws disfavoring arbitration on no fewer than six occasions between 1987 and 2022....more
Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s decision finding a delegation clause in an arbitration agreement to be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable and, moreover, that...more
Nearly a century ago, and recognizing the courts’ historic hostility toward arbitration agreements, Congress, followed shortly by the California Legislature, adopted laws intended to “favor” arbitration. In recent decades,...more
Ten is the presumptive upper limit on the number of depositions that each party may take in civil litigation in the federal courts. This number, provided by Rule 30(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, can be...more
In August 2000, the California Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling that changed the face of employment arbitration agreements going forward. That case, known as Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services,...more
Many California employers require their employees to sign agreements to submit any disputes arising out their employment to binding arbitration. If an employee files a lawsuit in court, the employer then has the option of...more