O'Neil-Rosales v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., No. JAD17-03 (L.A. Super. App. Div. May 10, 2017)
Appellate department decision affirming an appeal of a granted anti-SLAPP motion in a limited civil case brought under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Because the underlying act was recording a lien, the case arose from protected activity. And because plaintiff’s allegations didn’t describe debt collection practices as defined in the statutes, she had not probability of prevailing. So the motion was appropriately granted.
Affirmed.
Showing posts with label citibank. Show all posts
Showing posts with label citibank. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Broughton-Cruz Lives to Fight Another Day
McGill v. Citibank, N.A., No. S224086 (Cal. Apr. 6, 2107)
The Supreme Court granted review of this case to address whether claims brought under statutes like the CLRA and UCL, which permit a private plaintiff to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the public, can be subjected to mandatory arbitration wherein that relief is completely waived. The Court of Appeal said yes. The Supreme Court says no.
The main issue in the case is whether a California rule that claims seeking public injunctive relief are not arbitrable is preempted under § 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which makes all contracts to arbitrate enforceable except to the extent that state law would generally invalidate the contract. The California Supreme Court had previously upheld such a rule (known as the “Broughton-Cruz” rule), but there’s a question as to whether it survives the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in AT&T v. Concepcion, which held that class-action waivers were enforceable and any rule otherwise was preempted by § 2. Plaintiff analogizes Broughton-Cruz to Iskanian v. Superior Court, in which the California Supreme Court held that Private Attorney General Act claims, in which private plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of the state, cannot be compelled to arbitration because the state is not a party to the arbitration agreement.
But the Court sidesteps the brewing Concepcion/Iskanian debate—which will sooner or later make it to the U.S. Supreme Court—to decide the case on narrower grounds. The agreement here effectively precluded plaintiff from seeking public injunctive relief in any forum, arbitral or otherwise. But unlike Concepcion—where the class action waiver was a procedure inconsistent with arbitration— the contract here waived a substantive remedy that is un-waivable as a matter of statute. Which means that the waiver is unenforceable, Concepcion notwithstanding.
Court of Appeal reversed.
The Supreme Court granted review of this case to address whether claims brought under statutes like the CLRA and UCL, which permit a private plaintiff to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the public, can be subjected to mandatory arbitration wherein that relief is completely waived. The Court of Appeal said yes. The Supreme Court says no.
The main issue in the case is whether a California rule that claims seeking public injunctive relief are not arbitrable is preempted under § 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which makes all contracts to arbitrate enforceable except to the extent that state law would generally invalidate the contract. The California Supreme Court had previously upheld such a rule (known as the “Broughton-Cruz” rule), but there’s a question as to whether it survives the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in AT&T v. Concepcion, which held that class-action waivers were enforceable and any rule otherwise was preempted by § 2. Plaintiff analogizes Broughton-Cruz to Iskanian v. Superior Court, in which the California Supreme Court held that Private Attorney General Act claims, in which private plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of the state, cannot be compelled to arbitration because the state is not a party to the arbitration agreement.
But the Court sidesteps the brewing Concepcion/Iskanian debate—which will sooner or later make it to the U.S. Supreme Court—to decide the case on narrower grounds. The agreement here effectively precluded plaintiff from seeking public injunctive relief in any forum, arbitral or otherwise. But unlike Concepcion—where the class action waiver was a procedure inconsistent with arbitration— the contract here waived a substantive remedy that is un-waivable as a matter of statute. Which means that the waiver is unenforceable, Concepcion notwithstanding.
Court of Appeal reversed.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
This Ain't No PAGA
McGill v. Citibank, N.A., No. G047838 (Dec. 18, 2014)
The trial court in this case partially granted a petition to to compel arbitration, but denied it with respect to the plaintiff’s Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and False Advertising Law claims seeking injunctive relief. The denial was based on a line of old California cases holding that those claims aren’t arbitrable because they benefit the public. But those cases are preempted by AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which says states can’t make rules that discriminate against arbitration. In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), the California Supreme Court recently distinguished Concepcion with respect to claims brought under the Labor Code’s Private Attorney General Act. According to the Court, PAGA claims belong to the state government, even if they are prosecuted by an individual on the state’s behalf. Because the state didn’t agree to arbitrate the claims, a defendant can’t compel arbitration of PAGA claims. But that logic does not apply to UCL, CLRA, or FAL claims, which—while sometimes touching on the public interest—are nonetheless claims belonging to individuals, not the state’s claims that are pursued by an individual on its behalf.
Reversed.
Classic Minutemen, should you care.
Update: Review granted, April 2, 2015.
The trial court in this case partially granted a petition to to compel arbitration, but denied it with respect to the plaintiff’s Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and False Advertising Law claims seeking injunctive relief. The denial was based on a line of old California cases holding that those claims aren’t arbitrable because they benefit the public. But those cases are preempted by AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which says states can’t make rules that discriminate against arbitration. In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), the California Supreme Court recently distinguished Concepcion with respect to claims brought under the Labor Code’s Private Attorney General Act. According to the Court, PAGA claims belong to the state government, even if they are prosecuted by an individual on the state’s behalf. Because the state didn’t agree to arbitrate the claims, a defendant can’t compel arbitration of PAGA claims. But that logic does not apply to UCL, CLRA, or FAL claims, which—while sometimes touching on the public interest—are nonetheless claims belonging to individuals, not the state’s claims that are pursued by an individual on its behalf.
Reversed.
Classic Minutemen, should you care.
Update: Review granted, April 2, 2015.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)