4 Cited authorities

  1. 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court

    66 Cal.App.4th 1199 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 216 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that arbitration agreement is not unconscionable absent a showing that it was "unduly harsh, oppressive or one-sided"
  2. Mission Viejo Emergency Med. Assoc. v. Beta Healthcare Grp.

    197 Cal.App.4th 1146 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 78 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'"
  3. Martinez v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.

    83 Cal.App.4th 1236 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 87 times
    Holding that "[e]stoppel requires, among other things, reasonable reliance on the other party's actions" and rejecting estoppel where "plaintiffs could not reasonably have been misled"
  4. Hyundai Amco America, Inc. v. S3H, Inc.

    232 Cal.App.4th 572 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 3 times
    In Hyundai, the plaintiff, a general contractor, sued a subcontractor for breaching a services agreement providing that disputes would be subject to arbitration.