(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff brought class action suit against Defendant, Coca-Cola Company alleging misleading naming and marketing of “Diet Coke”. District court dismissed all claims under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). Appeals court that the adjective “diet” referred to caloric content and carries a relative meaning and not an absolute meaning.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacating a dismissal and remanding. A student loan borrower's complaints about a loan provider's statements that they needn't seek advice about their borrowing was not expressly preempted because she alleged affirmative misrepresentations, not failures to disclose.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a debt collection action, the court found that Defendant was liable for the debt, but found that the trial court erred by awarding Plaintiff attorney fees related to the defense of counterclaims.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and Remanded. The district court improperly dismissed a lawsuit in which a woman's credit card number and expiration date were printed on a receipt for lack of standing. The risk of identity theft was sufficient injury to support standing.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. An organization of wireless providers appealed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in their challenge of a Berkeley ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to warn potential buyers that carrying a phone could cause them to exceed FCC guidelines for exposure to radio-frequency radiation.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed Defendant’s summary judgment against Plaintiff, holding that the Fair Credit Reporting Act did not require Defendant to initiate a reinvestigation of incorrect credit report items because Plaintiff did not directly notify Defendant of disputed items.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s enforcement action against Defendant for alleged fraud in precious metal sales. Defendant maintained that there was an exception in the Commodity Exchange Act for retail commodity sales. Held that the burden was on the Defendant to prove that the exception applied and the exception could be satisfied if the commodity sat in a third-party depository. However, that was not the case in this suit. Plaintiff was not barred from bringing suit and the action should not have been dismissed. Remanded for further proceedings.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The trial court and the court of appeals denied class action certification to Plaintiff who sought to bring an action against retailers who allegedly misled buyers about the size of an inflatable outdoor pool. The Supreme court concluded that the trial court erred in demanding evidence about the ascertainability requirement for class certification, holding that there is not an additional evidentiary burden that the courts below imposed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in an action under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, which prohibits the use and disclosure of personal information derived from Department of Motor Vehicles records.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff filed a complaint against his employer for unfair competition under the Business and Professions Code section 17200 and also brought wage and hour claims. The Defendant moved to compel arbitration. The trial court granted arbitration for all claims, but for the unfair competition claim. The appeals court held that the unfair competition claim could also be subject to arbitration.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. The court reversed the dismissal of a class action consumer fraud and deceptive business case involving cat food labeled prescription cat food that was not materially different from regular cat food. The fraud claim was sufficiently pled and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's safe harbor didn't apply.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Restitution award vacated. The FTC sued Defendant for several violations of consumer protection statutes. The trial court found for the FTC, entered a permanent injunction against Defendant and ordered $5 million in restitution to the FTC. The appeals court affirmed the judgment as to the violations of consumer statutes and the injunction but held that restitution was not authorized by section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissed. Plaintiff and Defendant were married and shared a dental practice. When they divorced they each opened competing dental practices. Plaintiff filed suit alleging misappropriated trade secrets, economic damage, and unfair competition. Defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that advertising and notices to patients were protected activities. The trial court found that anti-SLAPP motion fell into the commercial speech exemption under CCP section 425.17. The appeals court agreed stating that the commercial speech exemption was not immediately appealable and therefore the appeals court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff brought a qui tam action alleging that Defendant violated the False Claims Act in its billings to Medi-Cal. The trial court sustained a demurrer and entered a judgment of dismissal of the complaint. The appeals court held that Defendant did not violate any requirement under law as to its billings to Medi-Cal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an arbitration award in favor of a physician who was sued by a patient for medical malpractice. Affirmed the trial court, rejecting the plaintiff's contentions about arbitrator bias and the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a former company president did not have to arbitrate his claims that the CEO and others wrongfully diluted his interest in the high-tech company's stock. His employment contract's arbitration clause did not cover this situation. Affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a supermarket chain's motion to compel arbitration of three employees' claims. The issue concerned whether alleged violations of state anti-discrimination and retaliation statutes had to be arbitrated under the collective-bargaining agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company could not force an insured taxi cab company to arbitrate a workers' compensation insurance dispute. Affirmed the denial of the insurer's motion to compel arbitration.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that when a contract delegates to an arbitrator the threshold question of whether a dispute belongs in arbitration, a court must allow the arbitrator to decide the issue, even if the court thinks that the arbitrability claim is wholly groundless. That is, a court may not short-circuit the process by stepping in for the arbitrator. The "wholly groundless" exception is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the unanimous opinion, which resolved a circuit split.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an arbitration clause in an online consumer contract was unenforceable because the consumer did not have reasonable notice of and manifest his assent to it. The consumer was suing a company that sells protection plans for consumer products. Affirmed the denial of the company's motion to compel arbitration.

(United States Supreme Court) - Construed a provision of the Federal Arbitration Act that excludes disputes involving certain transportation workers. The plaintiffs, interstate truck drivers, argued that their wage-hour lawsuit fell within the exclusion, and thus there was no basis to force them into arbitration despite the mandatory arbitration clause in their contract. Agreeing, the Supreme Court also held that the FAA's transportation worker exclusion covers independent contractors. Justice Gorsuch wrote the 8-0 opinion (Justice Kavanaugh took no part).

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an arbitrator made an "irrational" decision in a contract dispute between two government contractors. Affirmed the district court's vacatur of the arbitration award, in this case involving contracts to construct buildings and facilities in Afghanistan.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an arbitrator did not exceed his authority by denying attorney fees to a party that prevailed in an arbitration, under the particular circumstances of this case. Affirmed in relevant part, in a dispute involving an investment made by a retirement plan.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that temporary workers assigned to pack produce for a produce company must arbitrate their claims alleging labor law violations, because their staffing firm contract mandated arbitration. It was inconsequential that they chose not to name the staffing firm in their complaint. Reversed and remanded with directions to compel arbitration.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that employees alleging wage-hour violations could not be forced to arbitrate claims seeking civil penalties under California's Private Attorney General Act, because California law prohibits compelled arbitration of such claims. The employer unsuccessfully raised an argument based on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). Affirmed the trial court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an order issued by an arbitrator in the Philippines was not an arbitral award entitled to enforcement under a United Nations convention on recognition of foreign arbitral awards, based on the particular circumstances here. Reversed and remanded, in this case involving a fishing vessel crew member's personal injury claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a real estate firm could not compel arbitration of a home seller's proposed class action lawsuit. The arbitration clause in his residential listing agreement was unenforceable because there was no proof the broker had initialed it. Affirmed the ruling below.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a dispute involving an agreement to purchase power from a wind turbine farm was outside the scope of the parties' arbitration clause. Reversed an order compelling arbitration, in this lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the meaning of a contractual provision.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to arbitrate a former employee's claims before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), an entity with which the company had severed ties. The FINRA arbitration code no longer applied to the company, even though the employee had once been registered as a securities industry representative of the company.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a former delivery driver for a beverage company did not have to arbitrate his wage-and-hour lawsuit. His case fell within a statutory exemption in the Federal Arbitration Act that applies to transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. Affirmed the denial of the company's motion to compel arbitration.

(California Court of Appeal) - Addressed whether an arbitration agreement could be enforced, given that it was signed only after the employee filed her employment discrimination lawsuit. Reversed and remanded for further findings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a Houston law firm should be allowed to intervene in a lawsuit to protect its right to a contingent fee. The firm's client and the opposing party had allegedly conspired to cheat it out of its deserved attorney fee for work on a matter involving a foreign arbitral award. Remanded with directions to permit intervention and consider the law firm's claims on the merits.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration of an insurance dispute. A company that sued its workers' compensation insurer over premium hikes contended that the case did not have to be arbitrated because the California Insurance Code invalidated the parties' arbitration agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a store manager complaining of wage-and-hour violations did not have to arbitrate his claim under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Also, courts may not split a solitary PAGA claim and send only part of it to arbitration. Affirmed the denial of the store's motion to compel arbitration.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a store manager's claims against his former employer must be arbitrated. The arbitration agreement's choice-of-law clause did not alter this conclusion. Reversed the decision below in relevant part.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an employee who filed an administrative wage claim with the California Labor Commissioner could not be forced into arbitration, because his employment contract's arbitration clause was permeated with unconscionability. Affirmed the denial of a petition to compel arbitration.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a company was entitled to compel arbitration of discrimination claims, because the employee had impliedly accepted an arbitration agreement by continuing to work for the company. Reversed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that insurers that paid a claim arising from the failure of a floating oil-drilling platform could not proceed with a subrogation claim against an engineering firm that helped secure the platform to the ocean floor. Also addressed an arbitrability issue. Affirmed a dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Remanded for a redetermination of whether an arbitration agreement covered a dispute between a school and a consulting firm. Reversed an order denying arbitration.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that parties do not consent to classwide arbitration if the agreement is ambiguous on that point. An employer sought to block an employee from proceeding with a proposed class action lawsuit and instead force his claims into individual arbitration. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that the employer had the right to do this, because the arbitration agreement was ambiguous about the availability of classwide arbitration. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Upheld an arbitration panel award to an attorney in a fee dispute with a corporate client. Held that the client waived its challenge to the panel's composition by failing to object at the time of the arbitration hearing.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed the confirmation of an arbitration award issued by a rabbinical tribunal. Two groups of Hasidic Jews had agreed to arbitrate a trademark dispute before the tribunal, and then the winning side sought to confirm the award in secular court. The Second Circuit held that the district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction and confirmed the award.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a truck driver did not have to arbitrate his claim for unpaid wages. He fell within the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption for transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. Affirmed the ruling below.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a dispute between a bank and bondholders, held that not every entity that engages in municipal securities dealer activities is a "municipal securities dealer" for purposes of determining whether it is subject to compelled arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Addressed whether Hong Kong- and Vietnam-based companies could be forced into arbitration in a software development dispute. The issue involved whether nonsignatories may be bound by an arbitration agreement. Denied the companies' request for a writ of mandamus.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance dispute, addressed an issue relating to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Held that an insurance contract's conformity-to-statute provision did not negate the agreement to arbitrate.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that racial discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1981 may be subjected to compulsory arbitration. The plaintiff in this employment discrimination case contended that Section 1981 claims cannot be forced into arbitration. Disagreeing, the Ninth Circuit affirmed an order compelling arbitration.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Upheld an arbitration award in a business dispute involving one company's sale of certain assets to another. Affirmed the district court's confirmation of the arbitration award.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a construction contractor waived its right to compel arbitration of a unionized employee's wage-hour claim by waiting too long to file a motion to compel arbitration.

(California Court of Appeal) - A law firm's client was unable to compel arbitration of a fee dispute with his former attorneys. The case involved California's Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act.