Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc., No. B282667 (D2d6 Jul. 3, 2018)
As we hopefully all know by now, claims under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act aren’t arbitrable. Recognizing that fact, a Car Wash’s arb agreement waived the right to bring a PAGA claim, but provided that the PAGA waiver, if unenforceable, would be severable from the rest of the agreement to arbitrate. Or at least that’s what the the English version said.
Showing posts with label ambiguity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ambiguity. Show all posts
Monday, August 13, 2018
Monday, July 14, 2014
Supreme Court Aggressively Asserts Ambiguity in Pursuit of Proper Policy
City of L.A. v. County of Kern, No. S210150 (Cal. July 7, 2014)
Apropos of the recent hubbub in LA over what is and isn’t a federal question, the California Supreme Court deals with a federal law issue that, practically speaking, only comes up in state court: How long does a plaintiff have to re-file its claims in state court when a federal court declines supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)? Noting a “deep and long-standing national divide” on the issue, the court—continuing its streak of short opinions by Justice Werdegar—unanimously holds that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) does mean when it seems to say.
Apropos of the recent hubbub in LA over what is and isn’t a federal question, the California Supreme Court deals with a federal law issue that, practically speaking, only comes up in state court: How long does a plaintiff have to re-file its claims in state court when a federal court declines supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)? Noting a “deep and long-standing national divide” on the issue, the court—continuing its streak of short opinions by Justice Werdegar—unanimously holds that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) does mean when it seems to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)