Prima Paint rule in California

2020(Id. at p. 398.) Subsequently, in Buckeye, supra, 546 U.S. 440 , a borrower alleged that a check cashing company charged usurious interest rates, rendering the entire agreement with the check cashing company “illegal and void abinitio.” (Id. at p. 443.) The Supreme Court held “Prima Paint’s rule of 31 severability required that the arbitrator decide the challenge to the arbitration provision contained in the parties’ agreement because the challenge was “to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause . . . .” (Buckeye, at p. 449.) The Supreme Court st

2020(Id. at p. 398.) Subsequently, in Buckeye, supra, 546 U.S. 440 , a borrower alleged that a check cashing company charged usurious interest rates, rendering the entire agreement with the check cashing company “illegal and void abinitio.” (Id. at p. 443.) The Supreme Court held “Prima Paint’s rule of 31 severability required that the arbitrator decide the challenge to the arbitration provision contained in the parties’ agreement because the challenge was “to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause . . . .” (Buckeye, at p. 449.) The Supreme Court st

2020(Id. at p. 398.) Subsequently, in Buckeye, supra, 546 U.S. 440 , a borrower alleged that a check cashing company charged usurious interest rates, rendering the entire agreement with the check cashing company “illegal and void abinitio.” (Id. at p. 443.) The Supreme Court held “Prima Paint’s rule of 31 severability required that the arbitrator decide the challenge to the arbitration provision contained in the parties’ agreement because the challenge was “to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause . . . .” (Buckeye, at p. 449.) The Supreme Court st

2020(Id. at p. 398.) Subsequently, in Buckeye, supra, 546 U.S. 440 , a borrower alleged that a check cashing company charged usurious interest rates, rendering the entire agreement with the check cashing company “illegal and void abinitio.” (Id. at p. 443.) The Supreme Court held “Prima Paint’s rule of 31 severability required that the arbitrator decide the challenge to the arbitration provision contained in the parties’ agreement because the challenge was “to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause . . . .” (Buckeye, at p. 449.) The Supreme Court st

2019Second, if we conclude that [the plaintiff] specifically challenged the enforceability of the delegation provision, we then must decide whether the delegation 10 provision is unenforceable ‘upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity.’ 9 U.S.C. § 2 .” 12 (Minnieland Private Day School, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc. (4th Cir. 2017) 867 F.3d 449, 455 (Minnieland).) We conclude that Jackpot specifically challenged the arbitration agreement, and therefore the trial court properly determined the legality of the agreement in the first instance.

2019Second, if we conclude that [the plaintiff] specifically challenged the enforceability of the delegation provision, we then must decide whether the delegation 10 provision is unenforceable ‘upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity.’ 9 U.S.C. § 2 .” 12 (Minnieland Private Day School, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc. (4th Cir. 2017) 867 F.3d 449, 455 (Minnieland).) We conclude that Jackpot specifically challenged the arbitration agreement, and therefore the trial court properly determined the legality of the agreement in the first instance.

2019(Rent-A-Center, supra, 561 U.S. at p. 70 .) Under the Prima Paint rule, which applies in state as well as federal courts, “attacks on the validity of an entire contract, as distinct from attacks aimed at the arbitration clause, are within the arbitrator’s ken.” (Preston v. Ferrer (2008) 552 U.S. 346, 353 (Preston).) “The Prima Paint rule is akin to a pleading standard, whereby a party seeking to challenge the validity of an arbitration agreement must expressly say so in order to get his dispute into court.” (Rent-A-Center, supra, 561 U.S. at p. 80 (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).) The Fourth Circui

2019(Rent-A-Center, supra, 561 U.S. at p. 70 .) Under the Prima Paint rule, which applies in state as well as federal courts, “attacks on the validity of an entire contract, as distinct from attacks aimed at the arbitration clause, are within the arbitrator’s ken.” (Preston v. Ferrer (2008) 552 U.S. 346, 353 (Preston).) “The Prima Paint rule is akin to a pleading standard, whereby a party seeking to challenge the validity of an arbitration agreement must expressly say so in order to get his dispute into court.” (Rent-A-Center, supra, 561 U.S. at p. 80 (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).) The Fourth Circui

1983We held that the language and policies of the Act required the conclusion that the fraud issue was arbitrable. [Citation.]” ( 460 U.S. at p. 24 [ 74 L.Ed.2d at p. 785 , 103 S.Ct. at p. 941].) The New York Court of Appeals had previously held, at a time when it was unclear whether state courts were obligated to apply the Prima Paint rule to contracts covered by the federal arbitration statute, that as a matter of policy—to avoid conflict and forum shopping—federal law should be applied.

1983We held that the language and policies of the Act required the conclusion that the fraud issue was arbitrable. [Citation.]” ( 460 U.S. at p. 24 [ 74 L.Ed.2d at p. 785 , 103 S.Ct. at p. 941].) The New York Court of Appeals had previously held, at a time when it was unclear whether state courts were obligated to apply the Prima Paint rule to contracts covered by the federal arbitration statute, that as a matter of policy—to avoid conflict and forum shopping—federal law should be applied.