The California district court framed the issue to be a wholly unremarkable proposition- do arbitration agreements extend in perpetuity to cover actions occurring after a party has left the organization?
If I were the plaintiffs I would reply to the underlining petition for review (at least it was standard practice for the state when I filed petitions) but I would not line up competing amicus briefs at this time. There is no need to make this case appear unusual.
I did note that when Crain’s brief quoted Corinthians in a footnote, he left out the important distinction. Paul wrote about a situation where “brother goes to law against brother.” In the scenario presented by the court of appeal, one brother is no longer going to court against another brother. Crain is no better of a theologian than he is a legal scholar.
The California district court framed the issue to be a wholly unremarkable proposition- do arbitration agreements extend in perpetuity to cover actions occurring after a party has left the organization?
If I were the plaintiffs I would reply to the underlining petition for review (at least it was standard practice for the state when I filed petitions) but I would not line up competing amicus briefs at this time. There is no need to make this case appear unusual.
I did note that when Crain’s brief quoted Corinthians in a footnote, he left out the important distinction. Paul wrote about a situation where “brother goes to law against brother.” In the scenario presented by the court of appeal, one brother is no longer going to court against another brother. Crain is no better of a theologian than he is a legal scholar.
The justices vetted by the Federalist Society, which I believe are all the Republican appointees, should recuse themselves from the case.