Cal. Court of Appeal Publishes Caron Decision on Enforceability of RISC Arbitration Clause Following Industry Support

In Caron v. Mercedes–Benz Financial Services USA LLC — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2012 WL 2579662 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2012), the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the dealer and finance company adequately authenticated the sales contract in moving to compel arbitration.   Defendants attached both pages to their motion, and the first page matched the one plaintiff had attached her complaint, alleging it was a true copy of the contract. The Court of Appeal held that the FAA preempts not only state laws that single out and disadvantage arbitration clauses but also state laws that stand as an obstacle to achieving the FAA’s purposes.  Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports, LLC (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 601, therefore, was wrongly decided.  The CLRA’s anti-waiver provision combined with the CLRA’s allowance of class actions to remedy CLRA violations stand as an obstacle to the FAA’s purpose of enforcing arbitration agreements as written.  The Court of Appeal held that Concepcion effectively overruled Fisher.  The Court of Appeal remanded the case for the trial court to determine whether the arbitration clause is unconscionable. The decision initially was unpublished, perhaps in light of the pending Sanchez v. Valencia Motors case before the California Supreme Court. Industry support came out in favor of publishing the Caron decision.  DirectTV’s Request for Publication, MBF’s Request for Publication, Dealer’s Request for Publication, ASCDC Request for Publication, American Honda’s Request for Publication, AFSA/CFSA/CBA Request for Publication