PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Contract Arbitration
......Opposing Arbitration
.........Unconscionability
............In General
 13 Cards On This Topic:
  • Arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
  • Arb. clause in employment K not unconscionable b/c of an injunctive clause where the clause did not unreasonably favor the employer, but did no more than restate existing law.
  • Trial ct. correctly denied motion to compel arbitration where consumer agreement was unconscionable.
  • Arbitration provision procedurally and substantively unconscionable where it was buried in the middle of a 70-page agreement and contained discovery provisions curtailing plaintiffs' statutory rights.
  • Arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable where it was clear from the agreement and award that arbitrator applied the CA Uniform Commercial Code to parties' dispute.
  • Trial ct. erred in not finding arbitration provision unconscionable.
  • Motion to compel arbitration properly denied where agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
  • Order denying defendants' motion to compel arbitration reversed to determine if Ds knew or should have known plaintiff was represented by counsel when she signed the agreement.
  • Arbitration agreement unconscionable where it limited employee's ability to conduct discovery, instituted procedures that shortened statute of limitations and did not allow for prelitigation FEHA investigation.
  • Arbitration agreement was not procedurally unconscionable where P challenged only clearly set out terms, nor substantively unconscionable where terms showed mutuality.
  • Motion to compel properly denied where arb. provision failed to disclose prohibitively expensive arb. fees and was neither provided in Spanish nor explained to non-English reading Ps.
  • High degree of procedural and substantive unconscionability in employment arbitration agreement made it unenforceable under the Armendariz sliding-scale test set.
  • Employment arb. agreement enforceable where P showed only minimal procedural unconscionability and failed to make a strong showing of substantive unconscionability.


    •