No. 23-1132
Tags: arbitration-agreement arbitration-agreements civil-procedure federal-arbitration-act individualized-monetary-relief monetary-relief preemption public-officials state-law
Key Terms:
Arbitration Privacy ClassAction JusticiabilityDoctri
Arbitration Privacy ClassAction JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2024-09-30
Related Cases:
23-1130
(Vide)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law authorizing public officials to pursue claims for individualized monetary relief in court for the benefit of individuals who agreed to resolve those claims in arbitration, thereby circumventing those individuals’ arbitration agreements.
Docket Entries
2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-07-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-07-10
Reply of Lyft, Inc. submitted.
2024-07-10
Reply of petitioner Lyft, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
2024-06-20
Brief of People of the State of California in opposition submitted.
2024-05-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 20, 2024, for all respondents. See Rule 30.1.
2024-05-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 20, 2024 to June 19, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-04-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 20, 2024)
Attorneys
California
Joshua A. Klein — California Department of Justice, Respondent
Lyft, Inc.
Elaine Janet Goldenberg — Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Petitioner
Elaine Janet Goldenberg — Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Petitioner
People of the State of California
Joshua A. Klein — California Department of Justice, Respondent
Professor George A. Bermann
Retail Litigation Center, Inc.; California Retail Association
Jessica Lynn Ellsworth — Hogan Lovells US, LLP, Amicus
Jessica Lynn Ellsworth — Hogan Lovells US, LLP, Amicus