Unconscionability

This decision affirms an order denying enforcement of the arbitration clause in USC's employment contract on the ground that it is unconscionable in applying to any dispute (whether or not arising from the employment relationship), in being of perpetual duration (providing that it continued in effect after termination of employment unless both parties agreed otherwise), and lacking mutuality in requiring… Read More

The trial court correctly denied enforcement of the employer's arbitration agreement.  The arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable both because it was an adhesion contract in the employment context and because the way it was presented to the prospective employee for electronic signature made it difficult for her to read before signing.  The agreement was substantively unconscionable in containing a confidentiality… Read More

The trial court did not err in denying a motion to compel arbitration in this case on the ground of unconscionability.  The employee was required as a condition of employment to sign the arbitration agreement and a separate confidentiality agreement.  The two had to be construed together since they both dealt with resolution of disputes arising out of plaintiff's employment… Read More

Issued by the same court on the same day as Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. (2023) 2023 DAR ___, this decision also holds that the standard arbitration provision in a Nissan dealership's employment agreement is not unconscionable because it is not substantively unconscionable.  Contrary to the plaintiff's argument, the arbitration agreement did not prevent the employee from seeking administrative relief… Read More

Disagreeing with Davis v. TWC Dealer Group, Inc. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 662, this decision holding that the arbitration provision in Nissan dealerships' standard employment agreement is not unconscionable.  Though having a high degree of procedural unconscionability due to small print size and lengthy, obscure language, the clause is not substantively unconscionable.  Small print size and obtuse phrasing relate to procedural… Read More

An employer's arbitration clause was unconscionable and couldn't be saved by severance.  It required the employee to pay costs he would not incur in a court suit--a $250 filing fee and cost of a postponement if he requested one, neither of which could be shifted to the employer if the employee prevailed.  The clause also provided for an appeal to… Read More

Defendant residential care facility's arbitration clause was procedurally unconscionable as (i) it was a contract of adhesion, (ii) it incorporated the AAA rules but no copy of them was provided, and (iii) the facility required a patient undergoing an acute psychotic incident, who could not concentrate for more than 10-20 seconds to sign the clause.  The clause was substantively unconscionable… Read More

Employer's arbitration clause was unenforceable because it was unconscionable.  The clause was a mandatory, non-negotiable requirement of employment.  It was procedurally unconscionable because it was given to plaintiff only in English, which he cannot read, and without a schedule of the arbitration fees he could be charged.  It was substantively unconscionable because it allowed the arbitrator to shift attorney fees… Read More

This decision rejects Christine Chui's argument that she should not be bound by a settlement of a suit brought against her by other children of the same deceased parents, claiming that she had committed elder abuse against the parents and had, as trustee of their inter vivos trust, misappropriated the trust's funds.  The settlement agreement was not procedurally unconscionable.  The… Read More