skip navigation
search

PRESTON v. FERRER (No. 06-1463)
145 Cal. App. 4th 440, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 628, reversed and remanded.
Syllabus

Opinion
[Ginsburg]
Dissent
[Thomas]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

552 U. S. ____ (2008)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ARNOLD M. PRESTON, PETITIONER v. ALEX E.
FERRER

on writ of certiorari to the court of appeal ofcalifornia, second appellate district


[February 20, 2008]

    Justice Thomas, dissenting.

    As I have stated on many previous occasions, I believe that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. V), does not apply to proceedings in state courts. See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U. S. 265, 285–297 (1995) (Thomas, J., dissenting); see also Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U. S. 440, 449 (2006) (same); Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U. S. 444, 460 (2003) (same); Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U. S. 681, 689 (1996) (same). Thus, in state -court proceedings, the FAA cannot displace a state law that delays arbitration until administrative proceedings are completed. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.