|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-462||Cal. Ct. App.||Oct 6, 2015||Dec 14, 2015||6-3||Breyer||OT 2015|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.
Holding: Because the California Court of Appeal’s interpretation of a service agreement that included a binding arbitration provision with a class arbitration waiver – which specified that the entire arbitration provision was unenforceable if the “law of your state” made class-arbitration waivers unenforceable, but also declared that the arbitration clause was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act – is pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act, that court must enforce the arbitration agreement.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on December 14, 2015. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 21 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 20, 2014)|
|Nov 14 2014||Waiver of right of respondents Amy Imburgia, et al. to respond filed.|
|Nov 25 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2014.|
|Nov 25 2014||Response Requested . (Due December 29, 2014)|
|Dec 15 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 28, 2014, for all respondents.|
|Jan 28 2015||Brief of respondents Amy Imburgia, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Feb 10 2015||Reply of petitioner DIRECTV, Inc. filed.|
|Feb 11 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 27, 2015.|
|Mar 2 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 6, 2015.|
|Mar 9 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 20, 2015.|
|Mar 23 2015||Petition GRANTED.|
|Apr 27 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Apr 30 2015||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 29, 2015.|
|Apr 30 2015||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 17, 2015.|
|May 29 2015||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|May 29 2015||Brief of petitioner DIRECTV, Inc. filed.|
|Jun 1 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jun 2 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Jun 4 2015||Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed.|
|Jun 5 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jun 5 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Equal Employment Advisory Council filed.|
|Jun 5 2015||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.|
|Jun 5 2015||Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jun 5 2015||Brief amici curiae of Atlantic Legal Foundation and the International Association of Defense Counsel filed.|
|Jul 17 2015||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is further extended to and including July 20, 2015.|
|Jul 20 2015||Brief of respondents Amy Imburgia, et al. filed.|
|Jul 23 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Michael Vachon filed. (Distributed)|
|Jul 24 2015||Brief amicus curiae of William R. Weinstein filed.|
|Jul 24 2015||Brief amici curiae of Arbitration and Contracts Scholars filed.|
|Jul 24 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen, Inc. filed.|
|Jul 24 2015||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors Barbara Babcock, et al. filed.|
|Jul 24 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Peter Linzer filed.|
|Jul 24 2015||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors David Dow, et al.filed.|
|Jul 24 2015||Brief amici curiae of California Law Professors filed.|
|Jul 29 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 6, 2015.|
|Jul 31 2015||CIRCULATED.|
|Aug 11 2015||Pursuant to Rule 29.6, a letter updating corporate disclosure statement was received from counsel for the petitioner DIRECTTV. (Distributed).|
|Aug 12 2015||Record requested from Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District.|
|Aug 13 2015||Reply of petitioner DIRECTV, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 26 2015||Supplemental brief of respondents Amy Imburgia, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 31 2015||Supplemental response brief filed by petitioner DIRECTV, Inc. (Distributed)|
|Sep 17 2015||Record received from Court of Appeal of Ca. Second Appellate Dist. (1- Box)|
|Oct 6 2015||Argued. For petitioner: Christopher Landau, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Thomas C. Goldstein, Bethesda, Md.|
|Dec 14 2015||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor, J., joined.|
|Dec 14 2015||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Jan 15 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
|Jan 15 2016||MANDATE ISSUED|
🚨 LIVE NOW 🚨 5PM on IGTV #SimplePolitics join me & @AHoweBlogger editor / reporter for the @SCOTUSblog for a great conversation on the recent decisions by the Supreme Court. There is so much to talk about.
SimplePolitics with Kim Wehle - Special Guest Bill Kristol, Editor-At-Large, The Bulwark
Tonight on #SimplePolitics, Bill Kristol and I have an in-depth conversation about Impeachment, what‘s next for ...
ICYMI: We got Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s first majority opinion today.
SCOTUS rules against immigrant who has lived in the US without authorization for decades. The gov't sought to deport him based on a state misdemeanor conviction (he used a fake Social Security card to get a job). SCOTUS says 5-3 he's not eligible to seek protection from removal.
NEW: In Freedom of Information Act case, SCOTUS says federal government does not have to disclose documents that were produced as part of a rulemaking on "cooling water intake structures" under the Clean Water Act. The Sierra Club argued the docs should be disclosed under FOIA.
At 10:00 a.m. EST, the Supreme Court will hand down one or more opinions in argued cases.
We’ll be live blogging through it at 9:45 with @AHoweBlogger, Mark Walsh, and @jamesromoser.
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, March 4 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, March 4, as the court releases opinions from the 2020-21 term. This live ...
SCOTUS will hear oral argument at 10:00 a.m. EST about when claimants must raise claims in the administrative process – “exhausting” their administrative remedies. Read more from Ronald Mann.
It might sound exhausting! But we claim it might be fun.
Justices to weigh issue exhaustion for Social Security claimants - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Carr v. Saul involves a surprisingly basic question of administrative law: when claimants ...
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.