Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Postmates, LLC, fka Postmates, Inc. v. Melanie Winns, et al.

Paid petition · Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, No. A155717 · judgment July 20, 2021


Dismissed · October 14, 2022
Pre-decision estimate: 2% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides that arbitration agreements “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), this Court held that the FAA “protect[s]” individual arbitration agreements “pretty absolutely,” and requires courts “to enforce, not override, the terms of [an] arbitration agreement[]” “providing for individualized proceedings.” Id. at 1619, 1621, 1623. This Court granted review in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 734 (2021), which raises the same issue Petitioner Postmates, LLC raises here: whether the FAA preempts the rule in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), that California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act waivers are unenforceable, and instead requires enforcement of bilateral arbitration agreements including representative action waivers, such as the one the parties entered into here. Postmates requests that this Court hold this Petition pending disposition of Viking River, and then grant this Petition, vacate the California Court of Appeal decision below, and remand to the Court of Appeal with instructions to follow Viking River. The question presented is: Whether agreements calling for individual arbitration are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act with respect to claims asserted under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Theane Evangelis Kapur
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

For respondent
Amir Mostafavi
Mostafavi Law Group, APC

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Linked docket
21A294

Proceedings

  1. Oct 14 2022
    Petition Dismissed - Rule 46.
  2. Oct 12 2022
    Joint motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 46 filed.
  3. Jun 01 2022
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 26, 2022.
  4. May 24 2022
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 27, 2022 to July 26, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
  5. Apr 27 2022
    Response Requested. (Due May 27, 2022)
  6. Apr 26 2022
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
  7. Mar 11 2022
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 14, 2022)
  8. Jan 05 2022
    Application (21A294) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until March 12, 2022.
  9. Dec 29 2021
    Application (21A294) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 11, 2022 to March 12, 2022, submitted to Justice Kagan.