Supreme Court takes up UCL/CLRA arbitration issue: McGill v. Citibank

Class actions - arbitr...UCL - arbitrationUCL - Supreme Court
Written By

Last week, on April 1, 2015, the Supreme Court granted review in McGill v. Citibank, No. S224086. 

In McGill, the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) held that the Federal Arbitration Act, as construed in Concepcion, preempted the Broughton-Cruz rule.  See McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 232 Cal.App.4th 753 (2014), review granted.  

The California Supreme Court established this rule in a pair of cases: Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans of California, 21 Cal.4th 1066 (1999), which held that "the injunctive relief portion of a CLRA claim is inarbitrable," and Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc., 30 Cal.4th 303 (2003), which extended this holding to the UCL and FAL. 

My post on the Court of Appeal's original opinion in McGill is here.  If and when I obtain copies of the petition for review and other briefs, I will post them here.

Previous

Consumer arbitration case set for oral argument in May: Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.
Next

New class arbitration opinion: Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (Edwards)