Lane v. Francis Capital Mgmt. LLC
224 Cal.App.4th 676 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 131 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding 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
Mission Viejo Emergency Med. Assoc. v. Beta Healthcare Grp.
197 Cal.App.4th 1146 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 80 timesNoting 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'"
Malone v. Superior Court
226 Cal.App.4th 1551 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 60 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"