McGill v. Citibank docket information.
On December 22, 2014, I posted an article on McGill v. Citibank. Click here for prior post.
On April 1, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted a petition for review, putting the issue of arbitrability in flux once again. The District Court of Appeal opinion in McGill distinguished Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles (2014) 59 Cal. 4th 348, holding that a true Private Attorney General Action is properly a “state” action, while the injunctive claims of Ms. McGill were not, even though they intend to help people similarly situated. The California Supreme Court will undoubtedly examine that distinction.
Recently, I commented on the McGill case, which affirmed a broad measure of federal preemption of state restrictions on the enforceability of arbitration agreements. The prior article is:
McGill v Citibank- More Federal Preemption For Arbitration Agreements.
The Second District of the California Court of Appeals recently issued Montano v. The Wet Seal. The opinion affirmed the liberal preemption scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, but, since this case involved an attempt to waive the protections afforded by the the California Labor Code and the Private Attorney General Act, returned to Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348. The court held that Iskanian still controlled its narrow field of where California rules can require a court to void an arbitration agreement.
This new case does not break new ground or invite the United States Supreme Court to wield its hammer of preemption. It does, however, provide some strengthening of Iskanian should the federal courts question the ability of California to reserve matters for its courts that could be suitable for prosecution by its Attorney General.