California Supreme Court’s latest slippery evasion of federal arbitration law

Sharon McGill sued Citibank under California’s consumer protection laws for alleged unfair competition and false advertising in offering a credit insurance plan she purchased to protect her Citibank credit card … ›

PLF asks Supreme Court to review challenge to California's mining ban

Nearly two centuries ago, the Supreme Court recognized that the “unavoidable consequence” of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause is that States have “no power … to retard, impede, burden, or in … ›

Federal supremacy protects miners' rights

PLF and Western Mining Alliance have filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit case Bohmker v. Oregon. In the brief, we argue that federal mining policy preempts Oregon’s ban … ›

Can Californians arbitrate claims for public injunctive relief?

Sharon McGill sued Citibank under California’s consumer protection laws for alleged unfair competition and false advertising in offering a credit insurance plan she purchased to protect her Citibank credit card … ›

Game on! U.S. Supreme Court to review California anti-arbitration rule

Today, in the first order list of the 2015 Term, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in MHN Government Services, Inc. v. Zaborowski, in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals … ›

Supreme Court rejects New Jersey arbitration case

New Jersey courts, along with those of California and Massachusetts, continually exhibit hostility to the freedom of contract, when that freedom is expressed in a contract to arbitrate consumer or … ›

Putting the “Supreme” in Supremacy Clause

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion that California’s Discover Bank rule, which essentially forbade class-action waivers in consumer arbitration contracts, was preempted by the … ›

How California courts are evading federal law

Today’s Daily Journal carries an op-ed by PLF attorneys Deborah La Fetra and Wen Fa on DIRECTV v. Imburgia, the latest in a long line of California court cases undermining … ›

California versus the Supremacy Clause

In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, the California Supreme Court once again displayed its ongoing hostility to arbitration contracts.  As we noted when the decision came down in … ›

Brand Logo for the blog page

California Supreme Court’s latest slippery evasion of federal arbitration law

Sharon McGill sued Citibank under California’s consumer protection laws for alleged unfair competition and false advertising in offering a credit insurance plan she purchased to protect her Citibank credit card … ›

PLF asks Supreme Court to review challenge to California's mining ban

Nearly two centuries ago, the Supreme Court recognized that the “unavoidable consequence” of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause is that States have “no power … to retard, impede, burden, or in … ›

Federal supremacy protects miners' rights

PLF and Western Mining Alliance have filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit case Bohmker v. Oregon. In the brief, we argue that federal mining policy preempts Oregon’s ban … ›

Can Californians arbitrate claims for public injunctive relief?

Sharon McGill sued Citibank under California’s consumer protection laws for alleged unfair competition and false advertising in offering a credit insurance plan she purchased to protect her Citibank credit card … ›

Game on! U.S. Supreme Court to review California anti-arbitration rule

Today, in the first order list of the 2015 Term, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in MHN Government Services, Inc. v. Zaborowski, in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals … ›

Supreme Court rejects New Jersey arbitration case

New Jersey courts, along with those of California and Massachusetts, continually exhibit hostility to the freedom of contract, when that freedom is expressed in a contract to arbitrate consumer or … ›

Putting the “Supreme” in Supremacy Clause

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion that California’s Discover Bank rule, which essentially forbade class-action waivers in consumer arbitration contracts, was preempted by the … ›

How California courts are evading federal law

Today’s Daily Journal carries an op-ed by PLF attorneys Deborah La Fetra and Wen Fa on DIRECTV v. Imburgia, the latest in a long line of California court cases undermining … ›

California versus the Supremacy Clause

In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, the California Supreme Court once again displayed its ongoing hostility to arbitration contracts.  As we noted when the decision came down in … ›

The Morning Docket

Stay up to date with the Morning Docket, a weekly highlight of PLF's best articles, videos, and podcasts.

California Supreme Court’s latest slippery evasion of federal arbitration law

Sharon McGill sued Citibank under California’s consumer protection laws for alleged unfair competition and false advertising in offering a credit insurance plan she purchased to protect her Citibank credit card … ›

PLF asks Supreme Court to review challenge to California's mining ban

Nearly two centuries ago, the Supreme Court recognized that the “unavoidable consequence” of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause is that States have “no power … to retard, impede, burden, or in … ›

Federal supremacy protects miners' rights

PLF and Western Mining Alliance have filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit case Bohmker v. Oregon. In the brief, we argue that federal mining policy preempts Oregon’s ban … ›

Can Californians arbitrate claims for public injunctive relief?

Sharon McGill sued Citibank under California’s consumer protection laws for alleged unfair competition and false advertising in offering a credit insurance plan she purchased to protect her Citibank credit card … ›

Game on! U.S. Supreme Court to review California anti-arbitration rule

Today, in the first order list of the 2015 Term, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in MHN Government Services, Inc. v. Zaborowski, in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals … ›

Supreme Court rejects New Jersey arbitration case

New Jersey courts, along with those of California and Massachusetts, continually exhibit hostility to the freedom of contract, when that freedom is expressed in a contract to arbitrate consumer or … ›

Putting the “Supreme” in Supremacy Clause

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion that California’s Discover Bank rule, which essentially forbade class-action waivers in consumer arbitration contracts, was preempted by the … ›

How California courts are evading federal law

Today’s Daily Journal carries an op-ed by PLF attorneys Deborah La Fetra and Wen Fa on DIRECTV v. Imburgia, the latest in a long line of California court cases undermining … ›

California versus the Supremacy Clause

In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, the California Supreme Court once again displayed its ongoing hostility to arbitration contracts.  As we noted when the decision came down in … ›

California Supreme Court’s latest slippery evasion of federal arbitration law

Sharon McGill sued Citibank under California’s consumer protection laws for alleged unfair competition and false advertising in offering a credit insurance plan she purchased to protect her Citibank credit card … ›

PLF asks Supreme Court to review challenge to California's mining ban

Nearly two centuries ago, the Supreme Court recognized that the “unavoidable consequence” of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause is that States have “no power … to retard, impede, burden, or in … ›

Federal supremacy protects miners' rights

PLF and Western Mining Alliance have filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit case Bohmker v. Oregon. In the brief, we argue that federal mining policy preempts Oregon’s ban … ›

Can Californians arbitrate claims for public injunctive relief?

Sharon McGill sued Citibank under California’s consumer protection laws for alleged unfair competition and false advertising in offering a credit insurance plan she purchased to protect her Citibank credit card … ›

Game on! U.S. Supreme Court to review California anti-arbitration rule

Today, in the first order list of the 2015 Term, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in MHN Government Services, Inc. v. Zaborowski, in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals … ›

Supreme Court rejects New Jersey arbitration case

New Jersey courts, along with those of California and Massachusetts, continually exhibit hostility to the freedom of contract, when that freedom is expressed in a contract to arbitrate consumer or … ›

Putting the “Supreme” in Supremacy Clause

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion that California’s Discover Bank rule, which essentially forbade class-action waivers in consumer arbitration contracts, was preempted by the … ›

How California courts are evading federal law

Today’s Daily Journal carries an op-ed by PLF attorneys Deborah La Fetra and Wen Fa on DIRECTV v. Imburgia, the latest in a long line of California court cases undermining … ›

California versus the Supremacy Clause

In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, the California Supreme Court once again displayed its ongoing hostility to arbitration contracts.  As we noted when the decision came down in … ›