Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Handy Technologies, Inc. v. Patrick Pote
Paid petition · Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, No. B302770 · judgment August 16, 2021
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Does the Federal Arbitration Act require enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under the California Private Attorneys General Act. In other words, does the FAA and this Court’s precedent (e.g., AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) and Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018)) overrule the California Supreme Court’s precedent in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 327 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014)? This precise question is already pending before this Court in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573 (certiorari granted Dec. 15, 2021) and has been raised in numerous past and pending petitions for certiorari.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Benjamin Gross Shatz
Manatt, Phelps, & Phillips, LLP
For respondent
Andre Michel Mura
Gibbs Law Group LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 3 conferences
Proceedings
- Jul 29 2022JUDGMENT ISSUED
- Jun 27 2022Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U. S. ___ (2022).
- Jun 21 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/23/2022.
- May 03 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/19/2022.
- Apr 15 2022Brief of respondent Patrick Pote filed.
- Mar 18 2022Response Requested. (Due April 18, 2022)
- Mar 16 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2022.
- Feb 25 2022Waiver of right of respondent Patrick Pote to respond filed.
- Feb 04 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 16, 2022)