• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Arbitration Process Issues / CALIFORNIA ARBITRATION ROUND UP

CALIFORNIA ARBITRATION ROUND UP

February 14, 2013 by Carlton Fields

Class Waiver Cases Addressing Concepcion

Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Case No. 10-16959 (9th Cir. Dec. 26, 2012) (refusing to vacate district court’s judgment, rejecting argument that interim ruling of Concepcion created new right to arbitrate in this particular class action banking dispute; defendant waived right to arbitrate by litigating to judgment while Concepcion was pending, notwithstanding permissive arbitration clause)

Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc., Case No. A133236 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2013) (affirming denial of petition to compel individual arbitration in putative class action lawsuit; class waiver arbitration clause in motor vehicle sales contract procedurally and substantively unconscionable, notwithstanding Concepcion)

Outland v. Macy’s Department Stores, Inc., Case No. A133589 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2013) (affirming dismissal of putative class action lawsuit in employment dispute, citing Concepcion; underlying employment agreement contained a class waiver arbitration clause which should be upheld under FAA, notwithstanding California Gentry, Franco, and Truly Nolen decisional law holding such class waivers unenforceable)

Claim Preclusion

Casady v. The Waffle, LLC, Case No. B235553 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2013) (affirming denial of requests to restore and recommence civil action after arbitration was dismissed for failure of the plaintiff failed to pay share of arbitrator’s fee; dismissal of arbitration was a sanction and constituted an award on the merits)

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.