Category: Business Litigation

The jurisdiction of arbitrators to determine their own jurisdiction, or what is often described as the competence-competence doctrine, remains one of the more complex areas of arbitration law in the United States. Recently, in the case of ROHM Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc. which arose out of California, the Federal Circuit was confronted with the question of whether the competence-competence doctrine applies where the parties have incorporated by reference the California Code of Civil Procedure, or “CCCP” into their agreement to arbitrate. As discussed further below, the answer to this question turned on whether an arbitration is classified as international or domestic.

On June 1, 2020, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS,[…]

On April 2, 2020, the Supreme Court of California issued a much-awaited decision on whether Parties to international arbitration seated[…]

On October 22, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an opinion in Monster Energy Co. v. City Beverages,[…]

At last, a California appellate decision has provided clear instructions on how to draft a settlement agreement with payments secured[…]

Recently, the option of a private jury trial has been elected by litigants as the preferable means to gain control of trial proceedings.  The parties have the ability to select the judge, the bailiff, discovery limitations, rules of civil procedure and evidence, controlling law, length of trial, timing of trial commencement, orders of confidentiality, measures of security, and the finality of a decision.  Seeing that complex cases may take years to wind their way through trial and the appellate process at tremendous expense, the finality of decision holds a cost-benefit appeal for both sides.