This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner, the contract at issue explicitly requires that any dispute over its validity or legality be resolved through arbitration.
The petitioner warns that if the decision stands, it could trigger a wave of state‑law rulings that would eliminate arbitration in whole categories of cases.
A motion to compel arbitration was filed but was denied based on statutory provision 1700.44.
Background and question before the Court
Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on Monday, January 14, 2008 at 11:06 a.m.
Justice Kennedy asked how long the arbitration stay was intended to last.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Arnold M. Preston)
According to Petitioner, the contract clearly requires arbitration of any validity or legality issues.
Respondent (Alex E. Ferrer)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on Monday, January 14, 2008 at 11:06 a.m.
Justice Kennedy asked how long the arbitration stay was intended to last.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer remarked that the question was obvious and followed from earlier discussion.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer answered that the contract means the parties promised not to go to court.
Justice Scalia asked whether California substantive law was being incorporated.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg inquired about the role of the Labor Commissioner in the arbitration process.
According to Mr. Brunstad, mr. Brunstad explained that disputes under the California Talent Agencies Act must first be presented to the California Labor Commissioner, after which either party may appeal to the Superior Court and invoke arbitration rules.
According to Mr. Brunstad, mr. Brunstad stated that the Labor Commissioner does not have judicial authority to finally decide the controversy.
According to Mr. Brunstad, mr. Brunstad noted that if an arbitration clause were invalid or fraudulent, the court would decide its arbitrability, citing First Options.
Mr. Schleimer argued that Judge Ferrer could involve the Labor Commissioner to obtain evidence, emphasizing the Commissioner’s executive‑branch function.
- [1] 1e967cb5f96cafd6797f-r1-eb41cb581fc64cce.pdf, p. 1
- [2] 1e967cb5f96cafd6797f-r1-eb41cb581fc64cce.pdf, p. 5
- [3] 1e967cb5f96cafd6797f-r1-eb41cb581fc64cce.pdf, p. 21
- [4] 1e967cb5f96cafd6797f-r1-eb41cb581fc64cce.pdf, p. 40
- [5] 1e967cb5f96cafd6797f-r1-eb41cb581fc64cce.pdf, p. 42
- [6] 1e967cb5f96cafd6797f-r1-eb41cb581fc64cce.pdf, p. 58
- [7] 1e967cb5f96cafd6797f-r1-eb41cb581fc64cce.pdf, p. 22
- [8] 1e967cb5f96cafd6797f-r1-eb41cb581fc64cce.pdf, p. 24
- [9] 1e967cb5f96cafd6797f-r1-eb41cb581fc64cce.pdf, p. 39
- [10] 1e967cb5f96cafd6797f-r1-eb41cb581fc64cce.pdf, p. 58
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 1e967cb5f96cafd6797f-r1-eb41cb581fc64cce.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.