16 Cited authorities

Rent-A-Ctr. v. Jackson
561 U.S. 63 (2010) Cited 2,814 times 65 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract," even where the contract containing the arbitration provision is itself an arbitration agreement (quoting Buckeye , 546 U.S. at 445, 126 S.Ct. 1204 )
Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.
139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) Cited 1,218 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a court possesses no power to decide the arbitrability issue" if "the parties' contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator"
Brennan v. Opus Bank, Corp.
796 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2015) Cited 544 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "incorporation of the AAA rules constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that contracting parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability" between sophisticated parties
Shaw Grp. Inc. v. Triplefine Int'l Corp.
322 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2003) Cited 310 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an arbitration clause subjecting disputes to ICC rules constituted clear and unmistakable evidence of parties' intent to delegate arbitrability issues to arbitrator
Lane v. Francis Capital Mgmt. LLC
224 Cal.App.4th 676 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 140 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
Boghos v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London
36 Cal.4th 495 (Cal. 2005) Cited 156 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court must “give effect to every part [of a contract], if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other”
Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc.
226 Cal.App.4th 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 101 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding procedural unconscionability in part because the agreement was presented to a potential employee "on a take-it-or-leave-it basis"
Peng v. First Republic Bank
219 Cal.App.4th 1462 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 100 times
Holding that "the failure to attach the AAA rules, standing alone, is insufficient grounds to support a finding of procedural unconscionability"
Rodriguez v. American Technologies, Inc.
136 Cal.App.4th 1110 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 119 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that although the scope of an arbitration clause generally is a question for the court, parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to have the arbitrator determine the scope of the clause where the contract mandated arbitration in accordance with AAA Rules
Aanderud v. Superior Court of Kern Cnty.
13 Cal.App.5th 880 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) Cited 81 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding "it is the arbitrator who will consider ... whether the [class waiver] provision purports to waive the [plaintiffs'] right to seek public injunctive relief in all fora and, if so, what impact this has on the enforceability of the arbitration provision as a whole"
Section 11580.2 - Uninsured motor vehicles; underinsured motor vehicles; policies issued by nonadmitted Mexican insurers
Cal. Ins. Code § 11580.2 Cited 556 times 5 Legal Analyses
Requiring an insured to provide medical and wage authorizations forms upon request
Section 1226 - Motor vehicle franchise contract dispute resolution process
15 U.S.C. § 1226 Cited 36 times
Requiring separate consent in writing to arbitrate after a dispute arises, notwithstanding any arbitration clause in a franchise agreement

Response Reply

16 Cited authorities

Holding that "an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract," even where the contract containing the arbitration provision is itself an arbitration agreement (quoting Buckeye , 546 U.S. at 445, 126 S.Ct. 1204 )

Holding that "a court possesses no power to decide the arbitrability issue" if "the parties' contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator"

Holding that "incorporation of the AAA rules constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that contracting parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability" between sophisticated parties

Holding that an arbitration clause subjecting disputes to ICC rules constituted clear and unmistakable evidence of parties' intent to delegate arbitrability issues to arbitrator

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

Holding that a court must “give effect to every part [of a contract], if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other”

Finding procedural unconscionability in part because the agreement was presented to a potential employee "on a take-it-or-leave-it basis"

Holding that "the failure to attach the AAA rules, standing alone, is insufficient grounds to support a finding of procedural unconscionability"

Holding that although the scope of an arbitration clause generally is a question for the court, parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to have the arbitrator determine the scope of the clause where the contract mandated arbitration in accordance with AAA Rules

Concluding "it is the arbitrator who will consider ... whether the [class waiver] provision purports to waive the [plaintiffs'] right to seek public injunctive relief in all fora and, if so, what impact this has on the enforceability of the arbitration provision as a whole"

Requiring an insured to provide medical and wage authorizations forms upon request

Requiring separate consent in writing to arbitrate after a dispute arises, notwithstanding any arbitration clause in a franchise agreement