§Why CasetextPricing

defendants memorandum of points and authorities in support of petition

undefined

30 Cited authorities

  1. AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc'ns Workers of Am.

    475 U.S. 643 (1986)   Cited 5,097 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was for the court to decide whether a particular labor dispute fell within the arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining agreement

  2. EPIC Sys. Corp. v. Lewis

    138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018)   Cited 771 times   169 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under Concepcion , "courts may not allow a contract defense to reshape traditional individualized arbitration" and "a rule seeking to declare individualized arbitration proceedings off limits" is preempted by the FAA

  3. Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown

    565 U.S. 530 (2012)   Cited 334 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Holding that West Virginia's prohibition against predispute agreements to arbitrate personal-injury or wrongful-death claims against nursing homes was preempted by the FAA

  4. Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,631 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding unilateral arbitration provision substantively unconscionable

  5. Iskanian v. CSL Transportation Los Angeles, LLC

    59 Cal.4th 348 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 579 times   134 Legal Analyses
    Holding that arbitration provisions banning class-action litigation or collective arbitration of employment-related claims are enforceable under the NLRA and the FAA's saving clause, but also holding that arbitration provisions banning representative claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act violates that Act

  6. Moncharsh v. Heily Blase

    3 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 1,004 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"

  7. Pinnacle Museum Tower Association v. Pinnacle Market Development (Us), LLC

    55 Cal.4th 223 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 508 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

  8. Roman v. Superior Court (Flo-Kem, Inc.)

    172 Cal.App.4th 1462 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 175 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]hen bargaining power is not grossly unequal and reasonable alternatives exist, oppression typically inherent in adhesion contracts is minimal"

  9. Kinney v. United HealthCare Services, Inc.

    70 Cal.App.4th 1322 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 219 times
    Holding a "unilateral obligation to arbitrate is itself so one-sided as to be substantively unconscionable"

  10. 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"

  11. Section 1 - "Maritime transactions" and "commerce" defined; exceptions to operation of title

    9 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 11,452 times   198 Legal Analyses
    Defining the word "commerce" in the language of the Commerce Clause itself

  12. Section 1614 - Presumptive evidence of consideration

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1614   Cited 214 times

    A written instrument is presumptive evidence of a consideration. Ca. Civ. Code § 1614 Enacted 1872.