In Maybaum v. Target Corp., No. 2:22-cv-00687-MCS-JEM, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80466, at *15-16 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2022), Judge Scarsi enforced an arbitration clause despite arguments over whether the Arbitration Clause prohibited a right to public injunctive relief “in any forum” under McGill.
Plaintiff argues that California law prohibits compelling arbitration of her claims because she seeks public injunctive relief. MTCA Opp’n 13-18. California law prohibits the waiver of the right to seek public injunctive relief in any forum. See McGill v. Citibank, NA., 2 Cal. 5th 945, 963, 216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 627, 393 P.3d 85 (2017) (“[T]he FAA does not require enforcement of a provision in a predispute arbitration agreement that, in violation of generally applicable California contract law, waives the right to seek in any forum public injunctive relief under the UCL, the CLRA, or the false advertising law.”); see also DiCarlo v. MoneyLion, Inc., 988 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that an arbitration agreement permitting public injunctive relief does not violate McGill). The arbitration agreement states that “[t]he arbitrator may award declaratory or injunctive relief only on an individual basis and only to the extent necessary to provide relief warranted by the individual claim.” Terms & Conditions 25. Defendant argues that the language “relief warranted by the individual claim” permits public injunctive relief and thus does not violate McGill. MTCA Reply 11. The Court accepts this interpretation and concludes this arbitration agreement does not violate McGill. See Maynez v. Walmart, Inc., 479 F. Supp. 3d 890, 899-900 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (accepting Walmart’s interpretation of a similar provision and compelling arbitration). California law permits arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court thus GRANTS the motion to compel arbitration.