11 Cited authorities

  1. 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"
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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"
  6. 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
  7. 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"
  8. 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'"
  9. 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
  10. 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