KF&C California Law Blog

On July 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Quach v. California Commerce Club, eliminating the longstanding requirement under the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”) that a party opposing arbitration show that it had suffered prejudice as a result of the moving party’s delay in attempting to compel arbitration. No. S275121, 2024 WL 3530266 (Cal. July 25, 2024).

In a recent case, Doe v. WebGroup Czech Republic, A.S., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit answered a question that is frequently asked by U.S. litigants: “Is a foreign defendant subject to personal jurisdiction in a U.S. federal court where the defendant operates a website directed at the U.S. market?” For the first time, the Ninth Circuit provided a pragmatic standard for a critical issue in a world of globalized e-commerce and cloud computing.

The United States Supreme Court recently declined to review a property rights challenge to rent stabilization laws in New York City. The laws at issue limit rent increases and generally require landlords to renew a tenant’s lease. The denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court has significant implications for the countless rental unit owners and tenants in New York City, where approximately one million homes are subject to rent regulation, and could have serious ripple effects for rental owners and tenants in California.

Litigants facing a trial court’s denial of an attempt to compel arbitration may find themselves surprised by a significant change in California law that recently became effective on January 1, 2024: An appeal from an order denying or dismissing a petition to compel arbitration no longer automatically stays trial court proceedings. This reversal by the California Legislature from the historic norm—where an appeal would automatically stay trial court proceedings—amended Civil Code of Procedure Section 1294(a) and now gives trial court judges discretion to stay or continue proceedings. The amendment took effect this year after moving through the Legislature as California Senate Bill No. 365 (SB 365) and was approved by Governor Newsom on October 10, 2023.

An allegedly indefinite contract may not be enforceable for two reasons: First, the contract may be too indefinite for the court to administer—no remedy can be properly framed. Second, the indefiniteness of the contract may show a lack of contractual intent. Nevertheless, a contract need not specify price if price can be objectively determined. The absence of a price provision does not render an otherwise valid contract void.