Muyonga v. Johnson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the FAA did not preempt California law permitting court to stay arbitration pending resolution of related litigation where parties had selected California law in a standard choice of law provision
• holding that parties may choose expressly to agree to exclude specified claims from the scope of their arbitration agreement
• holding that application of the California arbitration statute was not preempted by the FAA where the parties agreed that California law would govern arbitration
• holding that “the FAA does not require parties to arbitrate when they have not agreed to do so” and “[a]rbitration under the [FAA] is a matter of consent, not coercion”
• holding that parties who agree to arbitrate may “specify by contract the rules under which that arbitration will be conducted”
• concluding that, where the parties’ choice-of-law provision referenced both the FAA and state law, the FAA governed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).