On August 11, the California Supreme Court issued a significant decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court addressing the interplay between the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and California’s statutory requirements for timely...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
In an August 12, 2025 decision, the Ninth Circuit emphasized important differences between the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”)—differences which might...more
The use of arbitration clauses in employment and consumer-related contracts is ubiquitous. California law requires companies facing employment and consumer claims in arbitration to pay arbitration fees and costs within 30...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
Case Background - A sanitation employee at Golden State Foods Corporation, signed an arbitration agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) at the start of his employment. In 2020, after reporting alleged...more
Abraham Lincoln once famously said that “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.” While this statement has been demonstrated to be true more often than not, what happens when (1) the pro se representation is not...more
Q: I am involved in pending litigation and would like to get a receiver appointed. The facts of the case, however, don’t exactly fit into the types of cases enumerated in Cal. Civ. Pro. Code §564(b). Is there some other bases...more
Since its enactment in 2019, Code of Civil Procedure 1281.98, which governs arbitration fee payments, has been inviolate: arbitrators do not have the unilateral power to extend the fee payment deadline; “checks in the mail”...more
Since its enactment, California courts have universally established the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.97 et seq., which governs the timely payment of fees in arbitration, allows no room for error....more
Calif. Supreme Court: San Diegans for Open Government v. Public Facilities Financing Authority of the City of San Diego - Only a party to a contract may bring a legal action under Government Code section 1092 to invalidate...more