Arbitration -- active



McArdle v. AT&T Mobility LLC   (9th Circuit)

Federal Arbitration Act preemption of California’s arbitration injunctive relief

On April 2, the NAM and the Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief in the 9th Circuit arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California’s attempts to circumvent arbitration requirements by requiring class arbitration proceedings. Class arbitration, like class litigation, sacrifices the advantages of arbitration. Arbitration allows manufacturers to resolve disputes promptly and efficiently while avoiding the costs associated with traditional litigation. Arbitration is speedy, fair, inexpensive and less adversarial than litigation in court.

As way of background, in McArdle, the arbitrator issued an award denying all of McArdle’s claims on the merits. McArdle moved to vacate the award and for reconsideration of the initial order compelling arbitration in light of the California Supreme Court’s intervening decision in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 393 P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017), where the California Supreme Court held that the right to public injunctive relief is not waivable in any forum and, therefore, is not preempted by the FAA. AT&T appealed the district court’s denial of AT&T’s motion to confirm the award in McArdle on the grounds that the FAA preempts California’s prohibition of arbitration agreements that do not allow public injunctive relief.


Related Documents:
NAM amicus brief  (April 2, 2018)

 


© 2019 National Association of Manufacturers