No. 24-1215

Miniso Depot CA, Inc., et al. v. Yongtong Liu

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2025-05-29
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (1) Experienced Counsel
Tags: arbitration-agreement dispute-resolution federal-arbitration-act piecemeal-litigation sexual-harassment statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
Arbitration JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Should claims within the scope of an arbitration agreement that are unrelated to sexual assault or sexual harassment continue to be arbitrated under the FAA?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) reflects “a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements.” CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood , 565 U.S. 95, 9 8 (2012) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem ’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. , 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983) ). Courts must “examine with care the complaints seeking to invoke their jurisdiction in order to separate arbitrable from nonarbitrable claims.” KPMG LLP v. Cocchi , 565 U.S. 18, 19 (2011) . “[I]f a dispute presents multiple claims, some arbitrable and some not, the former must be sent to arbitration even if this will lead to piecemeal litigation. ” Id. The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) permit s plaintiffs to void an arbitration agreement “with respect to a case which is filed un der Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to [a] sexual assault dispute or [a] sexual harassment dispute. ” 9 U.S.C. § 402(a). The question presented is: Should claims within the scope of an arbitration agreement that are unrelated to sexual assault or sexual harassment continue to be arbitrated under the FAA?

Docket Entries

2025-10-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-08-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-08-11
Reply of Miniso Depot CA, Inc., et al. submitted.
2025-08-11
Reply of petitioners Miniso Depot CA, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
2025-07-30
Brief of Yongtong Liu in opposition submitted.
2025-07-30
2025-06-30
Amicus brief of California Employment Law Counsel submitted.
2025-06-30
2025-06-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 30, 2025.
2025-06-02
Motion of Yongtong Liu for an extension of time submitted.
2025-06-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 30, 2025 to July 30, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-05-22
2025-03-14
Application (24A878) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until May 30, 2025.
2025-03-10
Application (24A878) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 31, 2025 to May 30, 2025, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

California Employment Law Counsel
Paul GrossmanPaul Hasting LLP, Amicus
Paul GrossmanPaul Hasting LLP, Amicus
Miniso Depot CA, Inc., et al.
E. Joshua RosenkranzOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Petitioner
E. Joshua RosenkranzOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Petitioner
Yongtong Liu
Stuart BannerUCLA School of Law Supreme Court Clinic, Respondent
Stuart BannerUCLA School of Law Supreme Court Clinic, Respondent