12 Cited authorities

Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.
24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000) Cited 1,737 times 44 Legal Analyses
Holding unilateral arbitration provision substantively unconscionable
Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc.
29 Cal.4th 1064 (Cal. 2003) Cited 388 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding "procedural element" established where employer had "imposed on [employee] an adhesive arbitration agreement"; observing "few employees are in a position to refuse a job because of an arbitration requirement"
Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc.
114 Cal.App.4th 77 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 227 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an arbitration clause in an automobile lease was procedurally unconscionable where the clause was "particularly inconspicuous," it was "printed in eight-point typeface on the opposite side of the signature page," and the consumer was not informed of the clause's existence
Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc.
115 Cal.App.4th 638 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 223 times
Holding that where an adhesive contract is oppressive, surprise need not be shown
Nyulassy v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
120 Cal.App.4th 1267 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 170 times
Holding that provision in arbitration agreement imposing 180-day limitation period was substantively unconscionable
Parada v. Superior Court (Monex Deposit Co.)
176 Cal.App.4th 1554 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 144 times
Finding no clear and unmistakable delegation where the contract included a severability provision applicable "[i]n the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be determined by a trier of fact of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable;" reasoning that this language suggested that "the trial court also may find a provision, including the arbitration provision, unenforceable"
Morris v. Redwood Empire Bancorp
128 Cal.App.4th 1305 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 157 times
Holding that contract provision in question was not a liquidated damages provision, and not applying Civ. Code § 1671
Carmona v. Lincoln Millennium Car Wash Inc.
226 Cal.App.4th 74 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 108 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an agreement in which an employer excluded a key clause in the Spanish translation of the agreement to employees who spoke little to no English added to the procedural unconscionability of the agreement
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'"
Wherry v. Award, Inc.
192 Cal.App.4th 1242 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 76 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding clause providing "arbitration must be filed within 180 days of the event triggering the action" unconscionable, where 180 days was "far shorter" than one-year statutory period that otherwise would have applied to plaintiff's claim

amended opposition to defendants motion to compel arbitration and to s

12 Cited authorities

Holding unilateral arbitration provision substantively unconscionable

Holding "procedural element" established where employer had "imposed on [employee] an adhesive arbitration agreement"; observing "few employees are in a position to refuse a job because of an arbitration requirement"

Holding that an arbitration clause in an automobile lease was procedurally unconscionable where the clause was "particularly inconspicuous," it was "printed in eight-point typeface on the opposite side of the signature page," and the consumer was not informed of the clause's existence

Holding that where an adhesive contract is oppressive, surprise need not be shown

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

Holding that contract provision in question was not a liquidated damages provision, and not applying Civ. Code § 1671

Holding that an agreement in which an employer excluded a key clause in the Spanish translation of the agreement to employees who spoke little to no English added to the procedural unconscionability of the agreement

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'"

Holding clause providing "arbitration must be filed within 180 days of the event triggering the action" unconscionable, where 180 days was "far shorter" than one-year statutory period that otherwise would have applied to plaintiff's claim