⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Real court arguments, crisp audio, with context.

Court recordings can be difficult to follow, and many suffer from poor audio quality. This podcast enhances the audio, provides a brief introduction to each case, and explains legal concepts that may be unfamiliar to some listeners.

We hope these enhancements make oral argument recordings easier to understand, more accessible, and more enjoyable to listen to.

Apple Podcasts Spotify YouTube /feed.xml Open RSS Status

O'Dell, et al. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. — 9th Cir. (Oct 1, 2026)

No. 26-3776 Argued October 1, 2026 Published October 2, 2026

Travel nurses sued Aya Healthcare, alleging that it cut their pay rates in the middle of their contracts. They also claim Aya miscalculated their overtime pay. Aya wants individual arbitration, a private process instead of a court case. Earlier arbitrations produced conflicting decisions about whether the agreements were enforceable. The Ninth Circuit reversed a ruling that used two nurses' arbitration victories to block arbitration for other employees. On remand, the district judge held the arbitration motion while preparing notice to additional potential plaintiffs. Aya now asks the Ninth Circuit to require an arbitration ruling first. The argument concerns the order of those steps and the limits on appellate intervention.

O'Dell, et al. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. (No. 26-3776) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 1, 2026.

Sources
Argument audio — Ninth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105):https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/01/26-3776.mp3
Nurses' allegations — originating plaintiffs' counsel Hartley LLP (not findings of liability):https://hartleyllp.com/portfolio-items/hartley-llp-files-travel-nursing-bait-and-switch-case-against-aya-healthcare/?portfolioCats=27
Complaint background and Miller arbitration — S.D. Cal., October 15, 2024 order (Doc. 136), mirrored by Justia:https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2022cv01151/739529/136/0.pdf
Prior arbitration ruling — S.D. Cal., February 25, 2025 order (Doc. 175), mirrored by Justia:https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2022cv01151/739529/175/0.pdf
Prior appeal — Ninth Circuit No. 25-1528, April 1, 2026 opinion:https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/01/25-1528.pdf
Post-remand motion and notice sequence — S.D. Cal., June 12, 2026 order (Doc. 223), mirrored by Justia:https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2022cv01151/739529/223/0.pdf
Counsel appearances — companion mandamus No. 26-3867 docket mirrored by Justia (snapshot August 10, 2026; not current case status):https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/26-3867
Delegation provisions — Rent-A-Center v. Jackson, Supreme Court opinion:https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-497.ZO.html
California unconscionability — Armendariz, California Supreme Court opinion:https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/24/83.html
Both unconscionability elements — Sanchez, California Supreme Court opinion:https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2015/s199119.html
Mandamus — Cheney, Supreme Court opinion:https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/542/367
All Writs Act — 28 U.S.C. § 1651, Cornell LII:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1651
Opt-in wage actions — 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Cornell LII:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/216
Notice and disputed arbitration obligations — Harrington, Ninth Circuit opinion:https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/07/01/23-15650.pdf

0:00
0:00