This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Litigation

Jun. 5, 2012

Kilgore: Broughton-Cruz post-Concepcion

The battle line for the enforceability of some arbitration clauses is whether Mitsubishi applies to both state and federal statutes. By Richard L. Kellner of Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP


By Richard L. Kellner


For decades, California state and federal courts have universally ruled that a party seeking injunctions under private attorney general statutes cannot be compelled to have those claims adjudicated in arbitrations. This has often been referred to as the "Broughton-Cruz rule," named after the state Supreme Court's decisions in Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans of California 21 Cal. 4th 1066 (1999), and Cruz v. Pac...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up