Advocates for Justice

The first modern cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, took the financial world by storm with its meteoric rise in 2009. As Bitcoin’s value and popularity grew, cryptocurrencies – virtual funds that exist within a decentralized currency system – have steadily gained their place within the modern financial market, despite their high volatility and lack of benchmark for evaluation.

The current market value of one Bitcoin is $6766 US Dollars. Stories of early investors such as Erik Finman, who purchased Bitcoin for $12 US Dollars a coin, motivate many to seek the same success by investing in Bitcoin and new coins alike. In the aftermath of the Bitcoin boom, the frenzy and excitement over these novel investment options have led to the emergence of numerous cryptocurrencies and online exchange platforms.

I have previously written about the framework for analyzing Sanchez issues, and I explained that the answer turns on the difference between “background information” and “case-specific facts.” Last week, our Supreme Court reaffirmed that “the distinction between case-specific facts and background information thus is crucial—the former may be excluded as hearsay, the latter may not.” (People v. Veamatahau (2020) 9 Cal.5th 16, 26.)

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that arbitration agreements are governed by contract. An arbitration agreement will bind the parties to a resolution outside of traditional litigation.

Businesses have viewed an arbitration clause as an effective method to control the risks and costs of class litigation. Consumers and employees have regularly attacked arbitration clauses as bar to substantive rights, unconscionable, and expensive to challenge an individual claim. Furthermore, upon accepting arbitration agreements consumers and employees waive their rights to pursue class actions.

Since our Supreme Court decided People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, lawyers and judges have struggled to understand its implications. I recently opposed a motion in limine titled “Defendant’s Motion to Preclude Expert Opinions Based on Hearsay (People v. Sanchez).” The caption alone showed that opposing counsel had not overcome that struggle.