Fast Auto Loans, Inc. v. Joe Maldonado, et al.

QUEST ION PRESENTED IsCali fornia ’sMcG i ll rule,underwhichagreements forindividual ized arbitra tion areinval ida ted when ap la inti ffseek s publ ic injunct iverel ief,preempt ed bythe FederalA rbi tration Ac t(“FAA ” ),9 U.S .C.§1 etseq. ,giventhisCou rt ’ shold ingsthat : • the FAArequir escourt sto“enfo r c ea rb itrat ion agreement sa cco rding to the ir terms, ”Lamp sPlu s,Inc .v.Vare la,139S . Ct .1407,1413(2019) ; • arb itration ag reements w ith term s requir ing“ ind ividual ized ”a rbi trat ionare “protec t[ed]pret tyabsolu tely”bytheFAA, Epic Systems Corp .v.L ewis, 138 S .C t . 1612,1621(2018 ) ; •s tatelawi spreemptedifit“standsasan obs ta c letothea ccompl ishmen tandexecut iono ftheful lpurposesandob j ect ives ” of the FAA , AT&T M obi lity LLC v. Concepc ion,563 U.S.333,352(2011) ; •s tatescanno tca rveoutparti cularca tego - r iesofdisputesfromth eoperat ionofthe FAA, Marme t H eal th Ca r eC tr. ,Inc.v. Brown,565 U.S.530,532(2012) ;and •s tate courts “must abide by the FAA, whichis‘thesup reme Lawo fthe Land , ’ U.S . Con s t.,A r t.V I ,c l.2, and bythe opinion so fthis Courtinterpret ingthat law,”Ni tro-Li ftT e chs .,L .L .C.v. Howard, 568 U.S .17 ,18(2012 )? ( i)