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.
8 California opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ajamian v. Cantorco2e. L.P.green2 sentences2024(Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 771, 781 .) The parties may specifically agree to delegate those issues to the arbitrator, but that delegation must be “ ‘clear and unmistakable.’ ” (Ibid.) A “contract’s silence or ambiguity about the arbitrator’s power in this regard cannot satisfy the clear and unmistakable evidence standard.” (Id. at p. 782.) The 2018 terms of service contain a severability clause under the heading “General”: “If a court holds that we cannot enforce any part of these Terms as drafted, we may replace those terms with similar terms to the extent enforceable 2021As we explained ante, “a contract’s silence or ambiguity about the arbitrator’s power [to decide threshold issues of arbitrability] cannot satisfy the clear and unmistakable evidence standard.” (Ajamian, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 782 ; see First Options, supra, 514 U.S. at pp. 943-945). | 2 | 6 |
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplangreen2 sentences2021As we explained ante, “a contract’s silence or ambiguity about the arbitrator’s power [to decide threshold issues of arbitrability] cannot satisfy the clear and unmistakable evidence standard.” (Ajamian, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 782 ; see First Options, supra, 514 U.S. at pp. 943-945). 2020(Benroya v. Willis (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 462, 473 (Benaroya).) “ ‘[P]arties may delegate threshold arbitrability questions to the arbitrator, so long as the parties’ agreement does so by “clear and unmistakable” evidence.’ ” (Moritz v. Universal City Studios LLC (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 238 , 247.) This is a “ ‘heightened’ standard of proof.’ ” (Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 771, 782 (Ajamian).) “[A] contract’s silence or ambiguity about the arbitrator’s power in this regard cannot satisfy the clear and unmistakable evidence standard.” (Ibid., citing First Options of Chicago, | 1 | 4 |
Benaroya v. Willisgreen1 sentence2020(Benroya v. Willis (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 462, 473 (Benaroya).) “ ‘[P]arties may delegate threshold arbitrability questions to the arbitrator, so long as the parties’ agreement does so by “clear and unmistakable” evidence.’ ” (Moritz v. Universal City Studios LLC (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 238 , 247.) This is a “ ‘heightened’ standard of proof.’ ” (Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 771, 782 (Ajamian).) “[A] contract’s silence or ambiguity about the arbitrator’s power in this regard cannot satisfy the clear and unmistakable evidence standard.” (Ibid., citing First Options of Chicago, | 1 | 1 |
At&T Mobility LLC v. Concepciongreen1 sentence2015We disagree with UPS’s view that the agreement is silent on the question merely because the agreement itself does not use the specific term “class action.” An agreement to arbitrate is interpreted like any other contract, consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which is “ ‘at bottom a policy guaranteeing the enforcement of private contractual arrangements.’ ” (Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1334, 1353 .) “ ‘[T]he basic objective in this area is . . . to ensure that commercial arbitration agreements, like other contracts, “ ‘are enforced according to their | 1 | 1 |
Winter v. Window Fashions Professionals, Inc.green2 sentences2012(See Winter v. Window Fashions Professionals, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 946-949 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 89 ] (Winter) [under the FAA, the court, not the arbitration panel, was to decide the enforceability of an arbitration clause providing that any controversy or claim shall be submitted to binding arbitration].) 8 We therefore hold that the clear and unmistakable evidence test is not met by language requiring arbitration of “[a]ny disputes, differences or controversies arising under” a contract. 2012(See Winter v. Window Fashions Professionals, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 946-949 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 89 ] (Winter) [under the FAA, the court, not the arbitration panel, was to decide the enforceability of an arbitration clause providing that any controversy or claim shall be submitted to binding arbitration].) 8 We therefore hold that the clear and unmistakable evidence test is not met by language requiring arbitration of “[a]ny disputes, differences or controversies arising under” a contract. | 1 | 1 |
Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theatergreen2 sentences2011(Id. at p. 1440, quoting First Options, supra, 514 U.S. at pp. 943-945; see also Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 547, 552 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 322 ], (Dream Theater); Murphy v. Check 'N Go of California, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 138, 144 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 120 ] (Murphy); Bruni v. Didion (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1286 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 395 ].) In First Options, the court acknowledged that the issue of who may determine gateway issues to arbitration “is rather arcane. 2011(Id. at p. 1440, quoting First Options, supra, 514 U.S. at pp. 943-945; see also Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 547, 552 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 322 ], (Dream Theater); Murphy v. Check 'N Go of California, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 138, 144 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 120 ] (Murphy); Bruni v. Didion (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1286 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 395 ].) In First Options, the court acknowledged that the issue of who may determine gateway issues to arbitration “is rather arcane. | 1 | 1 |
Bruni v. Didiongreen2 sentences2011(Id. at p. 1440, quoting First Options, supra, 514 U.S. at pp. 943-945; see also Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 547, 552 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 322 ], (Dream Theater); Murphy v. Check 'N Go of California, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 138, 144 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 120 ] (Murphy); Bruni v. Didion (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1286 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 395 ].) In First Options, the court acknowledged that the issue of who may determine gateway issues to arbitration “is rather arcane. 2011(Id. at p. 1440, quoting First Options, supra, 514 U.S. at pp. 943-945; see also Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 547, 552 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 322 ], (Dream Theater); Murphy v. Check 'N Go of California, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 138, 144 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 120 ] (Murphy); Bruni v. Didion (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1286 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 395 ].) In First Options, the court acknowledged that the issue of who may determine gateway issues to arbitration “is rather arcane. | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Check 'N Go of California, Inc.green2 sentences2011(Id. at p. 1440, quoting First Options, supra, 514 U.S. at pp. 943-945; see also Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 547, 552 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 322 ], (Dream Theater); Murphy v. Check 'N Go of California, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 138, 144 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 120 ] (Murphy); Bruni v. Didion (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1286 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 395 ].) In First Options, the court acknowledged that the issue of who may determine gateway issues to arbitration “is rather arcane. 2011(Id. at p. 1440, quoting First Options, supra, 514 U.S. at pp. 943-945; see also Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 547, 552 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 322 ], (Dream Theater); Murphy v. Check 'N Go of California, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 138, 144 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 120 ] (Murphy); Bruni v. Didion (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1286 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 395 ].) In First Options, the court acknowledged that the issue of who may determine gateway issues to arbitration “is rather arcane. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2015(Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 771, 784 , citing Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63 , 70, fn. 1.) Accordingly, "a contract's silence or ambiguity about the arbitrator's power [to decide a threshold question of arbitrability] cannot satisfy the clear and unmistakable evidence standard." (Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P., at p. 782, citing First Options, supra, 514 U.S. at pp. 943-945.) The reason for this standard is that the issue of who should decide arbitrability "is rather arcane. 2015(Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 771, 784 , citing Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63 , 70, fn. 1.) Accordingly, "a contract's silence or ambiguity about the arbitrator's power [to decide a threshold question of arbitrability] cannot satisfy the clear and unmistakable evidence standard." (Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P., at p. 782, citing First Options, supra, 514 U.S. at pp. 943-945.) The reason for this standard is that the issue of who should decide arbitrability "is rather arcane. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Douglass v. Serenivision, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020(Benroya v. Willis (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 462, 473 (Benaroya).) “ ‘[P]arties may delegate threshold arbitrability questions to the arbitrator, so long as the parties’ agreement does so by “clear and unmistakable” evidence.’ ” (Moritz v. Universal City Studios LLC (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 238 , 247.) This is a “ ‘heightened’ standard of proof.’ ” (Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 771, 782 (Ajamian).) “[A] contract’s silence or ambiguity about the arbitrator’s power in this regard cannot satisfy the clear and unmistakable evidence standard.” (Ibid., citing First Options of Chicago, | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Cable Connection, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015We disagree with UPS’s view that the agreement is silent on the question merely because the agreement itself does not use the specific term “class action.” An agreement to arbitrate is interpreted like any other contract, consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which is “ ‘at bottom a policy guaranteeing the enforcement of private contractual arrangements.’ ” (Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1334, 1353 .) “ ‘[T]he basic objective in this area is . . . to ensure that commercial arbitration agreements, like other contracts, “ ‘are enforced according to their | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.