Aviagames, Inc. v. Pandolfi
Pending Petition
Issue
(1) Whether the Federal Arbitration Act's equal-treatment requirement is violated by a rule deeming arbitration agreements procedurally unconscionable when they incorporate the American Arbitration Association’s rules because those rules are “subject to change”; and (2) whether California’s arbitration-specific severability doctrine—under which the Ninth Circuit refused to enforce the severance provision in the parties’ arbitration agreement—violates the FAA’s equal-treatment rule.
Dec 2, 2025Application (25A655) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 4, 2026 to February 19, 2026, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Dec 4, 2025Application (25A655) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until February 19, 2026.
Feb 19, 2026Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 26, 2026)Feb 23, 2026Waiver of Response of Andrew Pandolfi, et al. not accepted for filing. (February 24, 2026)
Feb 24, 2026Waiver of right of respondent Andrew Pandolfi and Mandi Shawcroft to respond filed.Mar 4, 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2026.
Mar 9, 2026Response Requested. (Due April 8, 2026)
Apr 8, 2026Brief of respondents Andrew Pandolfi, et al. in opposition filed.Recommended Citation: Aviagames, Inc. v. Pandolfi, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/aviagames-inc-v-pandolfi/