Skip to main content
Ninth Circuit· 12/28/2001

Bradley v. Harris Research, Inc.

Citations

  • 275 F.3d 884
  • 2001 WL 1658728

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that special arbitration conditions imposed by state law, such as bold notice provisions, are preempted by federal law
  • holding that special arbitration conditions imposed by state law, such as bold notice provisions, are preempted by federal law
  • holding that California Business & Professions Code § 20040.05 does not apply to “any contract” because it “applies only to forum selection SAKKAB V. LUXOTTICA RETAIL N. AM. 15 clauses and only to franchise agreements”
  • emphasizing that in Laxmi, “the forum selection clause in that franchise agreement was unenforceable because the parties never clearly agreed on the venue in which arbitration was to take place”
  • insulating from preemption only state law rules that are “generally applicable” or apply to “any contract”
  • California statute preempted because it applies only to forum-selection clauses and only to franchise agreements, and therefore it does not apply to “any contract”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hawkins, Noonan, Tashima

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.