Opinion ID: 3005108
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The FAA’s Purpose to Overcome Judicial

Text: Hostility to Arbitration The Supreme Court has stated that Congress enacted the FAA to “overrule the judiciary’s longstanding refusal to enforce agreements to arbitrate and to place such agreements upon the same footing as other contracts.” Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 302 (2010) (quoting Volt, 489 U.S. at 478). The FAA therefore preempts state laws prohibiting the arbitration of specific types of claims. See, e.g., Marmet, 132 S. Ct. at 1203; Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346, 356–59 (2008). The Amici Curiae argue that the Iskanian rule conflicts with the FAA’s purpose to overcome judicial hostility to arbitration because it prohibits outright the arbitration of “individual” PAGA claims. We reject this argument. The California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian expresses no preference regarding whether individual PAGA claims are litigated or arbitrated. It provides only that 9 We reject Sakkab’s contention that the PAGA waiver is invalid because it bars the assertion of statutory rights under American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013), and Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985). “The ‘effective vindication’ exception, which permits the invalidation of an arbitration agreement when arbitration would prevent the ‘effective vindication’ of a federal statute, does not extend to state statutes.” Ferguson v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 733 F.3d 928, 936 (9th Cir. 2013). 18 SAKKAB V. LUXOTTICA RETAIL N. AM. representative PAGA claims may not be waived outright. 59 Cal. 4th at 384. The Iskanian rule does not prohibit the arbitration of any type of claim.