Legal Opinion

Peleg v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 17, 2012No. B231634PublishedCited by 65 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MALLANO, P. J.

—Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16), “arbitration is a matter of contract.” (Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Co. (1960) 363 U.S. 574, 582 [4 L.Ed.2d 1409, 80 S.Ct. 1347]; accord, 9 U.S.C. § 2.) An arbitration contract typically consists of the parties’ mutual promises to arbitrate their claims against each other.

In this employment case, an employer and its at-will employees purportedly entered into a contract requiring the arbitration of claims by both sides. But the contract contains a modification provision stating that the employer may amend,…

2Cases cited84 opinions

  1. United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  3. Hertz Corp. v. FriendSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  4. Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002

79 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by65 opinions

  1. Oto, L. L.C. v. KhoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Serafin v. Balco Properties Ltd., LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  3. In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2016
  4. Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. Aanderud v. Superior Court of Kern Cnty., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017

60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API