Legal Opinion

In re Samsung Galaxy Smartphone Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided March 30, 2018No. Case No. 16–cv–06391–BLFPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

A district court faced with a petition to enforce an arbitration clause engages in a limited two-part inquiry: first, it determines whether the arbitration agreement is valid, and second, it determines whether the agreement encompasses the claims at issue. Ashbey v. Archstone Prop. Mgmt., Inc. , 785 F.3d 1320, 1323 (9th Cir. 2015). A district court does not consider challenges to the contract as a whole, but rather only specific challenges to the validity of the arbitration clause itself. See Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson , 561 U.S. 63, 70, 130 S.Ct. 2772, 177 L.Ed.2d 403 (2010) (noting…

2Cases cited30 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. At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. American Express Co. v. Italian Colors RestaurantSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  5. AIU Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Pang v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2019
  2. Henenfent v. LG Electronics USA, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2024
  3. Jeong v. Nexo Financial LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2022
  4. Kramer v. AvisDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2020
  5. ULLRICH v. TARGET CORPORATIONDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2025

2 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