Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will file opinions in McGill v. Citibank, N.A. and DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com. McGill was argued on the December calendar, but the court has not blown the 90-day deadline; the court requested post-argument supplemental briefs, so the 90-day clock did not re-start until February 15, when the last supplemental brief was filed. That argument had already been continued from the October calendar. DisputeSuite.com will be the first opinion in the cases argued in February.
McGill raises this issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 321, preempt the California rule (Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1066; Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 303) that statutory claims for public injunctive relief are not subject to compulsory private arbitration?
[Justice Carol Corrigan is recused. Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal Justice Judith Haller is the pro tem replacement.]
[Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus brief in this case on behalf of the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel.]
In DisputeSuite.com, the court will decide whether the defendants were entitled to an award of attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 as the prevailing parties in an action on a contract when they obtained the dismissal of the action on procedural grounds pursuant to a Florida forum selection clause.
The opinions can be viewed tomorrow starting at 10:00 a.m.