Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc.
California Supreme Court
1Dissent
KRUGER, J.,
Dissenting.—“Class arbitration is a matter of consent: An arbitrator may employ class procedures only if the parties have authorized them.” (Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter (2013) 569 U.S. 564, 565 [186 L.Ed.2d 113, 133 S.Ct. 2064, 2066] (Oxford Health).) In this case, the trial court held that the parties’ agreement did not authorize class arbitration. Plaintiff Timothy Sandquist argues that the arbitrator, rather than the court, should have made that determination. The focus of my disagreement with the majority involves the question of federal law at the center of this case:…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Oxford Health Plans LLC v. SutterSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Painewebber Incorporated v. Mohamad S. Elahi, Kokab Moarefi Elahi and Maryam ElahiCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Craig CrockettCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2013
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.