California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 3513 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any one may waive the advantage of a law intended solely for their benefit. But a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 154 cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1945–2026 · leading case: Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North Am., Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015).
Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North Am., Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 5× “The Iskanian court also found that agreements waiving the right to bring PAGA actions violated California Civil Code § 3513. Id. Civil Code § 3513 codifies the general principle that a law established for a public reason may not be contravened by private agreement.”
Cnty. of Riverside v. Superior Court, 42 P.3d 1034 (Cal. 2002). · cites it 8× “We note, in this regard, the inconsistency in the County's argument that it cannot disclose the documents at issue here to Madrigal on account of the various privileges, when at the same time it concedes that it must disclose the same documents to every law enforcement agency to…”
Paula Blair v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc., 928 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “The California Supreme Court held in McGill that an agreement to waive the right to seek public injunctive relief violates California Civil Code § 3513, which provides that “a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement.”
McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 393 P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017). · cites it 2× “) The contract defense at issue here-"a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement" (Civ. Code, § 3513 )- is a generally applicable contract defense, i.”
Connie A. Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc. The Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 469 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “3d 669 (explaining that this rule derives from California Civil Code section 3513, which prohibits the contractual waiver of legal rights established for a public purpose, and section 1668, which makes unlawful those contracts that would exempt a party from violations of law);…”
Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, 311 P.3d 184 (Cal. 2013). · cites it 2× “‗Civil Code section 3513 provides, in pertinent part, that: ―[a]nyone may waive the advantage of a law intended solely for his benefit.”
Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 6 P.3d 669 (Cal. 2000). · cites it 2× “" "Agreements whose object, directly or indirectly, is to exempt [their] parties from violation of the law are against public policy and may not be enforced.”
Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc., 63 P.3d 979 (Cal. 2003). · cites it 2× “First, Civil Code section 1668 states: `All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are…”
Brandon Hodges v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, 21 F.4th 535 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 3× “1 McGill derived its rule against waiver of public injunctive relief from California Civil Code § 3513, which provides: “Any one may waive the advantage of a law HODGES V.”
California Med. Ass'n v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare of California, Inc., 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10151 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “) 21 Civil Code section 3513’s maxim of jurisprudence provides: “Any one may waive the advantage of a law intended solely for his benefit.”
People v. Moret, 180 Cal. App. 4th 839 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “" (Civ. Code, § 3513.) This maxim of jurisprudence has been applied in a variety of criminal cases, upholding waivers of significant rights.”
Kaltwasser v. At & T Mobility LLC, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (N.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 5× “Each of these arguments is unavailing. A. Vindication-of-Rights Doctrine As Kaltwasser reads it, Concepcion invalidated the Discover Bank rule because the rule operated too broadly, invalidating most consumer arbitration agreements and having no real limiting principles.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.