Pazianos v. Schenker

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that 5 injunctive relief that does not “primarily benefit the general public as a more diffuse whole” is not 6 public injunctive relief
• holding that an injunction prohibiting future unlawful 15 conduct benefitting only “Comcast cable subscribers” rather than the public at large did not 16 constitute public injunctive relief
• holding that “public injunctive relief within the meaning of McGill is limited to forward-looking injunctions that seek to prevent future violations of law for the benefit of the general public as a whole”
• holding, where plaintiff does not 20 seek public injunctive relief, he cannot rely on \McGill rule\ to avoid arbitration
• noting that “when the injunctive relief being sought is for the benefit of a discrete class of persons, or would require consideration of the private rights and obligations of individual non-parties, it has been held to be private injunctive relief”
• rejecting argument that \courts should stretch to invalidate contracts based 22 on hypothetical issues that are not actually presented in the parties' dispute\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).