On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its highly-anticipated opinion in  DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia et al., 577 U.S. ___ (2015), which reaffirmed its ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 56 U.S. 333 (2011), dealing yet another blow to California Courts’ attempts to invalidate class action waivers.

Background

The plaintiffs in Imburgia

In American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, the Supreme Court held in a 5-3 decision that class waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable, even if the plaintiff’s cost of arbitrating her federal statutory claim exceeds her potential recovery.

Background

Italian Colors brought a class action against American Express for alleged federal antitrust violations

On June 10, 2013, the Supreme Court issued an arbitration decision underscoring the importance of including express class waivers in arbitration agreements.  In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld an arbitrator’s ruling that an arguably ambiguous arbitration provision permitted class arbitration.  Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter, No. 12-135, 2013 WL 2459522, 569

Notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, California courts continue to muddle through whether a court can mandate classwide arbitration, particularly in the context of arbitration agreements between employer and employee.  Truly Nolen of America v. Superior Court, decided this week by California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal,