Trial Court Erred When It Did Not Order All Claims, Even Those For Injunctive Relief, Into Arbitration.

Credit card holder sued Citibank under Business and Professions Code section 17200 for unfair competition and false advertising over an insurance plan she purchased to protect her Citibank credit card account. The trial court granted Citibank’s petition to compel arbitration on the claims for money damages and restitution, but denied the petition on the injunctive relief claims. The appellate court reversed and remanded for the trial court to order all the claims into arbitration, stating: “[W]e join several federal court decisions in concluding the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; hereinafter FAA) preempts the Broughton-Cruz, [Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1066, [90 Cal.Rptr.2d 334, 988 P.2d 67]] rule. In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. ___, [131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742], (AT&T Mobility), the United States Supreme Court unmistakably declared the FAA preempts all state-law rules that prohibit arbitration of a particular type of claim because an outright ban, no matter how laudable the purpose, interferes with the FAA’s objective of enforcing arbitration agreements according to their terms. The Broughton-Cruz rule falls prey to AT&T Mobility’s sweeping directive because it is a state-law rule that prohibits arbitration of UCL, FAL, and CLRA injunctive relief claims brought for the public’s benefit.” (McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; December 18, 2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 753, [181 Cal.Rptr.3d 494].)