3 Cited authorities

  1. Lane v. Francis Capital Mgmt. LLC

    224 Cal.App.4th 676 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 121 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding failing to attach rules to arbitration agreement did not render the agreement procedurally unconscionable because rules were easily accessible on the internet and the plaintiff did not lack means or capacity to retrieve them
  2. Mission Viejo Emergency Med. Assoc. v. Beta Healthcare Grp.

    197 Cal.App.4th 1146 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 78 times
    Noting that under the holding in Concepcion the "[g]eneral state law doctrine pertaining to unconscionability is preserved unless it involves a defense that applies 'only to arbitration or that derive[its] meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue'"
  3. Malone v. Superior Court

    226 Cal.App.4th 1551 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 51 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding federal law prohibits employee from basing unconscionability challenge to arbitration agreement on theory "arbitrators will tend to rule on the merits in favor of any employer who is a 'repeat player," as opposed to an employee who is not"