Edited by Archis A. Parasharami and Kevin S. Ranlett

Keywords: Arbitration, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, Ninth Circuit

As we previously reported, the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc in Kilgore v. KeyBank, NA, to determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a California public-policy rule that declares claims for so-called "public injunctive relief" off-limits to arbitration. On October 26, 2012, my colleagues and I, working with the National Chamber Litigation Center, filed an amicus brief  on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States supporting KeyBank.

As we discuss in the brief, California's rule conflicts with the FAA for three principal reasons:

  • First, the FAA flatly forbids States from "prohibiting arbitration of a particular type of claim"—as the Supreme Court reiterated earlier this year in Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, relying on AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. That is precisely what California's rule does.
  • Second, California's prohibition of the arbitration of public-injunction claims rests on the impermissible assumption that arbitrators are not competent to enter or administer injunctive relief. That assumption reflects the same unfounded suspicions of and judicial hostility to arbitration that the FAA was enacted to override.
  • Third, California's rule impedes the accomplishment of the two fundamental purposes of the FAA: ensuring enforcement of arbitration agreements according to their terms and fostering the benefits of simplicity, informality, and expedition that flow from use of the arbitral process. Under the Supremacy Clause, states lack the power to override federal law, and cannot avoid the FAA's requirement that arbitration agreements be enforced according to their terms simply by attempting to deputize plaintiffs (or their lawyers) as private attorneys general bringing claims on behalf of the general public.

The amicus brief also comprehensively refutes the plaintiffs' argument that Supreme Court precedent authorizes courts to refuse to enforce arbitration agreements whenever they conclude that, for one reason or another, it is not possible for a plaintiff to "vindicate" a state statutory right—in this case the right to pursue a public injunction—in arbitration.

The Ninth Circuit is expected to hear oral argument in Kilgore during the week of December 10. We'll be watching.

Originally published October 29, 2012

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2012. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.