7 Cited authorities

Peng v. First Republic Bank
219 Cal.App.4th 1462 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 100 times
Holding that "the failure to attach the AAA rules, standing alone, is insufficient grounds to support a finding of procedural unconscionability"
Victoria v. Superior Court
40 Cal.3d 734 (Cal. 1985) Cited 206 times
Holding that the term "`services'" has the same meaning throughout the agreement
Mission Viejo Emergency Med. Assoc. v. Beta Healthcare Grp.
197 Cal.App.4th 1146 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 83 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'"
Condee v. Longwood Management Corp.
88 Cal.App.4th 215 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 89 times
Holding that rule 371, the predecessor to rule 3.1330, "does not require the petitioner to introduce the agreement into evidence or provide the court with anything more than a copy or recitation of its terms"
Freeman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
14 Cal.3d 473 (Cal. 1975) Cited 180 times
Declining to apply the "several legal remedies" principle articulated in Elkins, because it is limited to scenarios in which "the two kinds of proceedings required the plaintiff to take inconsistent positions," and, thus, "requiring him to pursue the two concurrently in different tribunals would result in an awkward duplication of procedures"
Spear v. California State Auto. Assn.
2 Cal.4th 1035 (Cal. 1992) Cited 76 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Spear the Supreme Court held the insured's cause of action to compel arbitration against his insurer for refusal to settle his uninsured motorist claim did not accrue until the insurer refused to arbitrate, not when the insured had earlier satisfied section 11580.2, subdivision (i).
Mansouri v. Superior Court (Fleur Du Lac Estates Association)
181 Cal.App.4th 633 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 24 times
In Mansouri, as explained ante, the petitioning party tried to compel arbitration on different terms from those set forth in the arbitration agreement and on different terms from those in its own demand letter.

opposition to motion to compel arbitration

7 Cited authorities

Peng v. First Republic Bank

Holding that "the failure to attach the AAA rules, standing alone, is insufficient grounds to support a finding of procedural unconscionability"

Victoria v. Superior Court

Holding that the term "`services'" has the same meaning throughout the agreement

Mission Viejo Emergency Med. Assoc. v. Beta Healthcare Grp.

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'"

Condee v. Longwood Management Corp.

Holding that rule 371, the predecessor to rule 3.1330, "does not require the petitioner to introduce the agreement into evidence or provide the court with anything more than a copy or recitation of its terms"

Freeman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Spear v. California State Auto. Assn.

In Spear the Supreme Court held the insured's cause of action to compel arbitration against his insurer for refusal to settle his uninsured motorist claim did not accrue until the insurer refused to arbitrate, not when the insured had earlier satisfied section 11580.2, subdivision (i).

Mansouri v. Superior Court (Fleur Du Lac Estates Association)

In Mansouri, as explained ante, the petitioning party tried to compel arbitration on different terms from those set forth in the arbitration agreement and on different terms from those in its own demand letter.