11 Cited authorities

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
563 U.S. 333 (2011) Cited 3,629 times 597 Legal Analyses
Holding that a ban on collective-action waivers in those contracts worked to "disfavor arbitration"
Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.
24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000) Cited 1,707 times 44 Legal Analyses
Holding unilateral arbitration provision substantively unconscionable
Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys.
207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 1,164 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "district court correctly found that the federal law of arbitrability under the FAA governs the allocation of authority between courts and arbitrators" despite arbitration agreement's choice-of-law provision
Engalla v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc.
15 Cal.4th 951 (Cal. 1997) Cited 1,145 times
Holding that a party's "course of delay" in performing the terms of the contract, when "unreasonable or undertaken in bad faith, may provide sufficient grounds" for a finding of waiver
Moncharsh v. Heily Blase
3 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1992) Cited 1,045 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a party [who] is claiming the entire contract is illegal, or the arbitration agreement itself is illegal" must "raise the illegality question prior to participating in the arbitration process"
Craig v. Brown Root Inc.
84 Cal.App.4th 416 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 169 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding binding arbitration agreement when employer mailed documents to employee's home and they had not been returned despite employee's protestations that she had not received it
Asmus v. Pacific Bell
23 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2000) Cited 151 times 4 Legal Analyses
Finding a contract not illusory where "the promise was not optional with the employer and was fully enforceable until terminated or modified"
Mission Viejo Emergency Med. Assoc. v. Beta Healthcare Grp.
197 Cal.App.4th 1146 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 80 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'"
Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney v. 100 Oak St.
35 Cal.3d 312 (Cal. 1983) Cited 169 times
Adopting the majority rule as set forth in Prima Paint
Bolanos v. Khalatian
231 Cal.App.3d 1586 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) Cited 56 times
Holding that an arbitration clause, like any other contract clause, cannot be avoided merely because of an inability to read the language in which it was written

Raeda Ensheiwat vs. First American Trust Company

11 Cited authorities

Holding that a ban on collective-action waivers in those contracts worked to "disfavor arbitration"

Holding unilateral arbitration provision substantively unconscionable

Holding that "district court correctly found that the federal law of arbitrability under the FAA governs the allocation of authority between courts and arbitrators" despite arbitration agreement's choice-of-law provision

Holding that a party's "course of delay" in performing the terms of the contract, when "unreasonable or undertaken in bad faith, may provide sufficient grounds" for a finding of waiver

Holding that "a party [who] is claiming the entire contract is illegal, or the arbitration agreement itself is illegal" must "raise the illegality question prior to participating in the arbitration process"

Holding binding arbitration agreement when employer mailed documents to employee's home and they had not been returned despite employee's protestations that she had not received it

Finding a contract not illusory where "the promise was not optional with the employer and was fully enforceable until terminated or modified"

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'"

Adopting the majority rule as set forth in Prima Paint

Holding that an arbitration clause, like any other contract clause, cannot be avoided merely because of an inability to read the language in which it was written