Blue Cross of California v. Superior Court

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 845·67 Cal. App. 4th 42·78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 779·98 D.A.R. 10·98 Daily Journal DAR 10609
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 6, 1998B122446California10,277 words

Opinion

Opinion

Turner, J.

I. Introduction

This original writ proceeding presents a question of first impression: whether a California court can, as authorized by state law, order classwide arbitration in a case that falls under the Federal Arbitration Act (the act). ( 9 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.) Stated differently, the issue is whether the act preempts California decisional authority authorizing classwide arbitration. The United States Supreme Court has never reached the question whether the act precludes classwide arbitration under state law. We conclude application of the California classwide arbitration rule is not preempted by the act. Accordingly, we deny the writ petition.

II. Background

Two named plaintiffs, Elizabeth Farquhar, and Laurie Winett, brought this class action, against Blue Cross of California and Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. (collectively, Blue Cross). They alleged Blue Cross had “engaged in a widespread practice of selling and administering health plans which violate laws concerning preexisting condition exclusions, waiting period exclusions, waivered condition exclusions, and temporary exclusions.” Blue Cross answered the complaint alleging, in part, that plaintiffs were…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.