18 Cited authorities

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
563 U.S. 333 (2011) Cited 3,963 times 605 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 1,834 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding unilateral arbitration provision substantively unconscionable
Pinnacle Museum Tower Association v. Pinnacle Market Development (Us), LLC
55 Cal.4th 223 (Cal. 2012) Cited 669 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an arbitration clause in CC&Rs was binding on the homeowners' association, even though the association did not exist as an independent entity when the CC&Rs were drafted and recorded
Rosenthal v. Great W. Fin. Secs. Corp.
14 Cal.4th 394 (Cal. 1996) Cited 808 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding fraud in the inducement "occurs when the promisor knows what he is signing but his consent is induced by fraud"
Mercuro v. Superior Court
96 Cal.App.4th 167 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 267 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding arbitration provision substantively unconscionable where it "compel[ed] arbitration of the claims employees are more likely to bring"
Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P.
203 Cal.App.4th 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 199 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that incorporation by reference fails the clear and unmistakable test in the employment context
Fitz v. NCR Corp.
118 Cal.App.4th 702 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 239 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an incorporated AAA discovery rule was deliberately hidden by a conflicting discovery provision in the arbitration agreement
Nyulassy v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
120 Cal.App.4th 1267 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 173 times
Holding that provision in arbitration agreement imposing 180-day limitation period was substantively unconscionable
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”
Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
17 Cal.3d 699 (Cal. 1976) Cited 324 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "to predicate the legality of a consensual arbitration agreement upon the parties' express waiver of jury trial would be as artificial as it would be disastrous" because parties "well know" that arbitration "disputes are not resolved by juries"

Paul Vega vs. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

18 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 an arbitration clause in CC&Rs was binding on the homeowners' association, even though the association did not exist as an independent entity when the CC&Rs were drafted and recorded

Holding fraud in the inducement "occurs when the promisor knows what he is signing but his consent is induced by fraud"

Holding arbitration provision substantively unconscionable where it "compel[ed] arbitration of the claims employees are more likely to bring"

Finding that incorporation by reference fails the clear and unmistakable test in the employment context

Holding that an incorporated AAA discovery rule was deliberately hidden by a conflicting discovery provision in the arbitration agreement

Holding that provision in arbitration agreement imposing 180-day limitation period was substantively unconscionable

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

Holding that "to predicate the legality of a consensual arbitration agreement upon the parties' express waiver of jury trial would be as artificial as it would be disastrous" because parties "well know" that arbitration "disputes are not resolved by juries"