No. 21-1121

Handy Technologies, Inc. v. Patrick Pote

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2022-02-14
Status: GVR
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (3) Experienced Counsel
Tags: arbitration-agreement california-private-attorneys-general-act class-action employee-rights federal-arbitration-act preemption representative-claims supreme-court-precedent
Key Terms:
Arbitration WageAndHour ClassAction
Latest Conference: 2022-06-23 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Federal Arbitration Act require enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under the California Private Attorneys General Act?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Does the Federal Arbitration Act require enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under _ the California Private Attorneys General Act. In other words, does the FAA and this Court’s precedent (e.g., AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) and Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018)) overrule the California Supreme Court’s precedent in Iskanian ov. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 327 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014)? This precise question is already pending before this Court in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573 (certiorari granted Dec. 15, 2021) and has been raised in numerous past and pending petitions for certiorari.

Docket Entries

2022-07-29
JUDGMENT ISSUED
2022-06-27
Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of <i>Viking River Cruises, Inc.</i> v. <i>Moriana</i>, 596 U. S. ___ (2022).
2022-06-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/23/2022.
2022-05-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/19/2022.
2022-04-15
Brief of respondent Patrick Pote filed.
2022-03-18
Response Requested. (Due April 18, 2022)
2022-03-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2022.
2022-02-25
Waiver of right of respondent Patrick Pote to respond filed.
2022-02-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 16, 2022)

Attorneys

Handy Technologies, Inc.
Benjamin Gross ShatzManatt, Phelps, & Phillips, LLP, Petitioner
Benjamin Gross ShatzManatt, Phelps, & Phillips, LLP, Petitioner
Patrick Pote
Andre Michel MuraGibbs Law Group LLP, Respondent
Andre Michel MuraGibbs Law Group LLP, Respondent
Amanda KarlGibbs Law Group LLP, Respondent
Amanda KarlGibbs Law Group LLP, Respondent