Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Discover Bank v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 2005No. S113725Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

BAXTER, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur in part and dissent in part. I agree with the majority that federal law does not compel enforcement of contractual class action waivers simply because they are contained in *175arbitration agreements. But I lament the majority’s determination to use this case as a vehicle to resolve the issue of California’s policy on class action waivers. For two reasons, we need not, and should not, confront that question here.

First, because the Court of Appeal upheld the instant waiver solely by finding federal preemption of any California antiwaiver policy, that…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. CasarottoSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
  5. City of San Jose v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974

23 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