In re Samsung Galaxy Smartphone Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig.
District Court, N.D. California
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
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- American Express Co. v. Italian Colors RestaurantSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- AIU Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Pang v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2019
- Henenfent v. LG Electronics USA, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2024
- Jeong v. Nexo Financial LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2022
- Kramer v. AvisDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2020
- ULLRICH v. TARGET CORPORATIONDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2025
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.