§Why CasetextPricing

BALTAZAR v. FOREVER 21

Appellants, Forever 21, Inc., Forever 21 Logistics, LLC, Herber Corleto, and Darlene Yu, Answer to Petition for Review

5 Cited authorities

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

    24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,738 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding unilateral arbitration provision substantively unconscionable

  2. 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"

  3. Mercuro v. Superior Court

    96 Cal.App.4th 167 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 253 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding arbitration provision substantively unconscionable where it "compel[ed] arbitration of the claims employees are more likely to bring"

  4. Fitz v. NCR Corp.

    118 Cal.App.4th 702 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 224 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an incorporated AAA discovery rule was deliberately hidden by a conflicting discovery provision in the arbitration agreement

  5. Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc.

    212 Cal.App.4th 221 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. B237173. 12-20-2012 MARIBEL BALTAZAR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FOREVER 21, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants. OPINION MALLANO, P. J. Plaintiff filed this action against her former employer and three employees, alleging she was constructively discharged and subjected to discrimination and harassment based on race and sex. The employer and two of the employees filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement between plaintiff and the employer. Plaintiff opposed