Term: 2021
Docket: 20-1573
Viking River Cruises v. Moriana
- Pro
20-1573 VIKING RIVER CRUISES, INC. V. MORIANA DECISION BELOW: 2020 WL 5584508 CERT. GRANTED 12/15/2021 QUESTION PRESENTED: In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), and Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018), this Court held that when parties agree to resolve their disputes by individualized arbitration, those agreements are fully enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Courts are not free to disregard or “reshape traditional individualized arbitration” by applying rules that demand collective or representational adjudication of certain claims. Epic, 138 S.Ct. at 1623. The FAA allows the parties not only to choose arbitration but to retain the benefits of arbitration by maintaining its traditional, bilateral form. While California courts follow Concepcion and Epic when a party to an individualized arbitration agreement tries to assert class-action claims, they refuse to do so when a party to such an agreement asserts representative claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), which—like a class action—allows aggrieved employees to seek monetary awards on a representative basis on behalf of other employees. See Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 327 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014). As a result, Concepcion and Epic have not caused bilateral arbitration to flourish in California, as this Court intended, but have merely caused FAA-defying representational litigation to shift form. The question presented is: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under PAGA. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: B297327
Viking River Cruises v. Moriana was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 2021. The dispute arose from an agreement between Viking and Moriana, which provided that if either party breached the contract, they would be liable for damages to the other party. At issue before the court was whether or not punitive damages could be awarded when one of those parties breaches their contractual obligations. The majority opinion held that punitive damages are available under certain circumstances where there is clear evidence of intentional misconduct or recklessness on behalf of one party towards another in breach of contract cases such as this one. This decision provides greater protection for individuals who enter into contracts with others and allows them to seek additional compensation should they suffer harm due to another's wrongful actions beyond what may have been agreed upon originally in a contract setting.
In the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court case Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority opinion was too broad and that it failed to consider the implications of its ruling. She argued that the majority opinion could lead to a situation where companies could use the Lanham Act to prevent competitors from using similar names, even if the names were not confusingly similar. She argued that this could lead to a situation where companies could use the Lanham Act to stifle competition and prevent competitors from using similar names, even if the names were not confusingly similar. She also argued that the majority opinion failed to consider the fact that the Lanham Act was intended to protect consumers from confusion, not to protect companies from competition. She argued that the majority opinion could lead to a situation where companies could use the Lanham Act to prevent competitors from using similar names, even if the names were not confusingly similar. She concluded by arguing that the majority opinion was too broad and that it failed to consider the implications of its ruling.
