No. 18-319

E. & J. Gallo Winery, et al. v. Refugio Arreguin

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2018-09-12
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (3)
Tags: arbitrability circuit-court-split circuit-split class-arbitration federal-arbitration-act gateway-question gateway-question-of-arbitrability oxford-health-plans oxford-health-plans-v-sutter stolt-nielsen stolt-nielsen-v-animalfeeds supreme-court-precedent
Key Terms:
Arbitration Privacy ClassAction
Latest Conference: 2019-04-26 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a court, or an arbitrator, decides whether an arbitration agreement permits class arbitration

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED This case presents a Federal Arbitration Act question that: e this Court was unable to resolve definitively in Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003); see id. at 447-54 (plurality opinion of Breyer, J.); e this Court twice thereafter has noted remains open, see Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Intl Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 680 (2010); Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 569 n.2 (2013); and e the California Supreme Court now has resolved contrary to the decisions of five United States circuit courts of appeals. The question: Whether a court, or an arbitrator, decides whether an arbitration agreement permits class arbitration. The California Supreme Court assigned the question to the arbitrator. By contrast, the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth circuits have held that the FAA assigns the question to the court as a “gateway” question of arbitrability. This Court should grant certiorari to resolve the conflict in the cases on an important question under the FAA.

Docket Entries

2019-04-29
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019.
2019-01-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-14
Reply of petitioners E. & J. Gallo Winery, et al. filed.
2019-01-14
Supplemental brief of petitioners E. & J. Gallo Winery, et al. filed.
2019-01-02
Brief of respondent Refugio Arreguin in opposition filed.
2018-11-14
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 2, 2019.
2018-11-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 30, 2018 to December 31, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-10-31
Response Requested. (Due November 30, 2018)
2018-10-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2018.
2018-10-12
Waiver of right of respondent Refugio Arreguin to respond filed.
2018-09-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 12, 2018)

Attorneys

E. & J. Gallo Winery, et al.
Paul William Cane Jr.Paul Hastings LLP, Petitioner
Paul William Cane Jr.Paul Hastings LLP, Petitioner
Refugio Arreguin
Ryan H. WuCapstone Law APC, Respondent
Ryan H. WuCapstone Law APC, Respondent