Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 California opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2026 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLCred2 sentences2025(Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 378 .) Regarding the first question, the court held that a predispute waiver of the right to bring a representative PAGA action is unenforceable. 2025(Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 378 .) Regarding the first question, the court held that a predispute waiver of the right to bring a representative PAGA action is unenforceable. | 2 | 11 |
Grafton Partners L.P. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2025(See Grafton Partners, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 967 [emphasizing that “it is for the Legislature, not this court, to determine whether, and under what circumstances, a predispute waiver of jury trial will be enforceable in this state”].) While California courts cannot recognize a predispute jury trial waiver as valid, neither the Constitution nor the relevant statutes declare all such waivers void.6 6 These observations concerning the jury trial right are consistent with the federal appellate court’s reasoning and conclusion in County of Orange, supra, 784 F.3d 520 . 2017We think the same analysis applies here. ‘“[I]t is for the Legislature, not th[e] court[s], to determine whether, and under what circumstances, a predispute waiver of jury trial will be enforceable in this state.” (Grafton, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 967 .) As the Grafton court explained, the Legislature has expressly authorized agreements to submit future disputes to arbitration or to a referee. (§§ 638, 1281; Grafton, supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 960-961.) But neither section 631 nor any other statute authorizes predispute waivers of the right to jury trial by parties who submit their disputes to a | 1 | 4 |
ZB, N.A. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2026(Id. at pp. 360, 383-384; see also ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175, 181 [explaining that Iskanian held that “a court may not enforce an employee’s alleged predispute waiver of the right to bring a PAGA claim in any forum”].) After Iskanian, the courts of appeal held that employees could not be compelled to arbitrate their representative PAGA claims, and representative and individual PAGA claims could not be split into bifurcated proceedings. 2020Effect of ZB on Holdings of Prior Appellate Cases Based upon the analyses of Tanguilig, Betancourt, Julian, and Correia, the answer to Dewey’s first question on appeal—“Did the trial court err in holding that claims brought by an employee under [PAGA] cannot be compelled to arbitration based on the employee’s predispute agreement to arbitrate”—clearly is “No.” Dewey argues, however, that the courts in those cases (including this court) misapplied the holding of 13 Iskanian, which Dewey contends the Supreme Court “clarified” in ZB when it stated: “we held [in Iskanian] that a court may not enfo | 1 | 2 |
Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc.green2 sentences2024(Viking River, supra, 142 S.Ct. at pp. 1922-1925; accord, Adolph, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 1117; see Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 382-383.) Viking River also left intact the Iskanian holding that a predispute waiver of only non-individual PAGA claims is unenforceable. 2024(Viking River, supra, 142 S.Ct. at pp. 1922-1925; accord, Adolph, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 1117; see Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 382-383.) Viking River also left intact the Iskanian holding that a predispute waiver of only non-individual PAGA claims is unenforceable. | 1 | 1 |
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Morianagreen1 sentence2022Recently, Iskanian was overturned, in part, when the United States Supreme Court held that “the FAA preempts the rule of Iskanian insofar as it precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate.” (Viking River, supra, 596 U.S. ___ , ___ [142 S.Ct. at p. 1924].) Thus, the United States Supreme Court ruled that employees who entered into arbitration agreements that are subject to the FAA may be compelled to arbitrate individual PAGA claims, and the severed off representative claims must be dismissed because the employees lack standing | 1 | 1 |
County of Solano v. LIONSGATE CORP.green2 sentences2017(County of Solano v. Lionsgate Corp. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 741, 749, fn. 5 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 362 ]; see also Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 386-387.) This is currently a PAGA case, and Prudential is relying on a *446 2006 predispute arbitration agreement by Betancourt to compel arbitration in this 2015 case brought on behalf of the state. 2017(County of Solano v. Lionsgate Corp. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 741, 749, fn. 5 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 362 ]; see also Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 386-387.) This is currently a PAGA case, and Prudential is relying on a *446 2006 predispute arbitration agreement by Betancourt to compel arbitration in this 2015 case brought on behalf of the state. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Alvarezgreen2 sentences2011Only Preston addresses the substitution of an administrative forum for a judicial one, and only one paragraph in Preston considers the validity of an administrative forum preliminary to an arbitral one; but as discussed above, the plaintiff in Preston did not, nor could he have, raise legitimate public policy or unconscionability defenses at issue here. “[I]t is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.” (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1176 [ 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903 , 46 P.3d 372 ].) That axiom applies with equal force to the one post-Preston case cited by 2011Only Preston addresses the substitution of an administrative forum for a judicial one, and only one paragraph in Preston considers the validity of an administrative forum preliminary to an arbitral one; but as discussed above, the plaintiff in Preston did not, nor could he have, raise legitimate public policy or unconscionability defenses at issue here. “[I]t is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.” (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1176 [ 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903 , 46 P.3d 372 ].) That axiom applies with equal force to the one post-Preston case cited by | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trizec Properties, Inc. v. Superior Court
red
2 sentences2006Trizec had held that although the statute addressing jury trial waiver in the judicial forum, section 631, did not authorize a predispute waiver, such a waiver was permissible without statutory authorization. [2] ( Grafton, supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 951-952, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 5 , 116 P.3d 479 .) The Supreme Court disapproved Trizec insofar as it permitted a waiver without statutory authorization. ( Grafton, supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 956, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 5 , 116 P.3d 479 .) The Supreme Court agreed with Trizec, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d 1616 , 280 Cal.Rptr. 885 , that section 631 did not authorize such a 2006Trizec had held that although the statute addressing jury trial waiver in the judicial forum, section 631, did not authorize a predispute waiver, such a waiver was permissible without statutory authorization. ( Grafton, supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 951-952.) The Supreme Court disapproved Trizec insofar as it permitted a waiver without statutory authorization. 2 (Grafton, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 956 .) The Supreme Court agreed with Trizec Properties, Inc. v Superior Court, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d 1616 , that section 631 did not authorize such a waiver. | 3 | 2005–2006 |
Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.
red
2 sentences2018Procedurally, a contract which requires the predispute waiver of rights or remedies as a condition of entering into a contract for goods or services may very well be adhesive and contain other elements of procedural unconscionability identified by our Supreme Court in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Servs. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83 , 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 , 6 P.3d 669 . 2018Procedurally, a contract which requires the predispute waiver of rights or remedies as a condition of entering into a contract for goods or services may very well be adhesive and contain other elements of procedural unconscionability identified by our Supreme Court in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Servs. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83 , 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 , 6 P.3d 669 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Lawson v. ZB, N.A.
green
1 sentence2026(See, e.g., Lawson v. ZB, N.A. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 705, 725 , affd. but abrogated on other grounds sub nom. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
County of Orange v. United States District Court
green
2 sentences2025(See Grafton Partners, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 967 [emphasizing that “it is for the Legislature, not this court, to determine whether, and under what circumstances, a predispute waiver of jury trial will be enforceable in this state”].) While California courts cannot recognize a predispute jury trial waiver as valid, neither the Constitution nor the relevant statutes declare all such waivers void.6 6 These observations concerning the jury trial right are consistent with the federal appellate court’s reasoning and conclusion in County of Orange, supra, 784 F.3d 520 . 2025(See Grafton Partners, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 967 [emphasizing that “it is for the Legislature, not this court, to determine whether, and under what circumstances, a predispute waiver of jury trial will be enforceable in this state”].) While California courts cannot recognize a predispute jury trial waiver as valid, neither the Constitution nor the relevant statutes declare all such waivers void.6 6 These observations concerning the jury trial right are consistent with the federal appellate court’s reasoning and conclusion in County of Orange, supra, 784 F.3d 520 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Ruff v. SPLICE, INC.
green
2 sentences2011Only Preston addresses the substitution of an administrative forum for a judicial one, and only one paragraph in Preston considers the validity of an administrative forum preliminary to an arbitral one; but as discussed above, the plaintiff in Preston did not, nor could he have, raise legitimate public policy or unconscionability defenses at issue here. “[I]t is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.” (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1176 [ 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903 , 46 P.3d 372 ].) That axiom applies with equal force to the one post-Preston case cited by 2011Only Preston addresses the substitution of an administrative forum for a judicial one, and only one paragraph in Preston considers the validity of an administrative forum preliminary to an arbitral one; but as discussed above, the plaintiff in Preston did not, nor could he have, raise legitimate public policy or unconscionability defenses at issue here. “[I]t is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.” (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1176 [ 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903 , 46 P.3d 372 ].) That axiom applies with equal force to the one post-Preston case cited by | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans
green
2 sentences2011Only Preston addresses the substitution of an administrative forum for a judicial one, and only one paragraph in Preston considers the validity of an administrative forum preliminary to an arbitral one; but as discussed above, the plaintiff in Preston did not, nor could he have, raise legitimate public policy or unconscionability defenses at issue here. “[I]t is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.” (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1176 [ 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903 , 46 P.3d 372 ].) That axiom applies with equal force to the one post-Preston case cited by 2011Only Preston addresses the substitution of an administrative forum for a judicial one, and only one paragraph in Preston considers the validity of an administrative forum preliminary to an arbitral one; but as discussed above, the plaintiff in Preston did not, nor could he have, raise legitimate public policy or unconscionability defenses at issue here. “[I]t is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.” (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1176 [ 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903 , 46 P.3d 372 ].) That axiom applies with equal force to the one post-Preston case cited by | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011Only Preston addresses the substitution of an administrative forum for a judicial one, and only one paragraph in Preston considers the validity of an administrative forum preliminary to an arbitral one; but as discussed above, the plaintiff in Preston did not, nor could he have, raise legitimate public policy or unconscionability defenses at issue here. “[I]t is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.” (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1176 [ 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903 , 46 P.3d 372 ].) That axiom applies with equal force to the one post-Preston case cited by 2011Only Preston addresses the substitution of an administrative forum for a judicial one, and only one paragraph in Preston considers the validity of an administrative forum preliminary to an arbitral one; but as discussed above, the plaintiff in Preston did not, nor could he have, raise legitimate public policy or unconscionability defenses at issue here. “[I]t is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.” (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1176 [ 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903 , 46 P.3d 372 ].) That axiom applies with equal force to the one post-Preston case cited by | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
green
2 sentences2005And as the Court of Appeal in the present case reasoned, "[i]f only parties to a pending action may waive a jury under section 631, then it is logical to conclude that both the execution of the written consent and the filing of that consent must occur during the pendency of the civil action." We also note that, although the decision in Trizec, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d 1616 , 280 Cal.Rptr. 885 , determined that a predispute waiver of jury trial was permissible on nonstatutory groundsโ€”a conclusion correctly rejected in the present case by the Court of Appeal, as established in the preceding secti 2005And as the Court of Appeal in the present case reasoned, "[i]f only parties to a pending action may waive a jury under section 631, then it is logical to conclude that both the execution of the written consent and the filing of that consent must occur during the pendency of the civil action." We also note that, although the decision in Trizec, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d 1616 , 280 Cal.Rptr. 885 , determined that a predispute waiver of jury trial was permissible on nonstatutory groundsโ€”a conclusion correctly rejected in the present case by the Court of Appeal, as established in the preceding secti | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.