Takeaway: Parties seeking to compel arbitration often rely on the rule that where an arbitration agreement contains broad language, any ambiguity about whether a claim must be.
Terms of Use cinemax.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from cinemax.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On April 5, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) lawsuit arising from a former Comcast customer’s re-application for services, holding that the FCRA claim related to a prior agreement that contained an arbitration provision. The case is noteworthy in that it involved a particularly sweeping arbitration provision applying broadly to
all disputes between the parties, even those arising after the services agreement was terminated that the Eleventh Circuit had not previously considered. The court ultimately did not reach the question of the provision’s enforceability, however, instead remanding the case to the district court to determine its enforceability in the first instance.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
On April 21, 2021, the Second Appellate District of the Court of
Appeal of the State of California filed an unpublished opinion rejecting Uber s
attempt to enforce an arbitration provision that waived an
employee s right to bring a claim under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). This
statute authorizes aggrieved employees to file lawsuits
to recover civil penalties from employers for violations of the
California labor code.
The plaintiff, Jonathan Gregg, filed a lawsuit against Uber in
August 2018, alleging that the ride-share company willfully
misclassified him as an independent contractor rather than an
[author: Shiva Pedram]
On April 21, 2021, the Second Appellate District of the Court of Appeal of the State of California filed an unpublished opinion rejecting Uber’s attempt to enforce an arbitration provision that waived an employee’s right to bring a claim under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). This statute authorizes “aggrieved employees” to file lawsuits to recover civil penalties from employers for violations of the California labor code.
The plaintiff, Jonathan Gregg, filed a lawsuit against Uber in August 2018, alleging that the ride-share company “willfully misclassified him as an independent contractor rather than an employee,” which led to violations of California Wage Order 9-2001 and several other Labor Code provisions that triggered his rights under PAGA. In response to the suit, Uber filed a motion to compel arbitration under the Arbitration Provision of the “Technology Services Agreement,” which the plaintiff was required to sign