Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 California opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Villa Milano Homeowners Ass'n v. Il Davorgered2 sentences2010Code, §§ 11018, 11018.5.) Moreover, the DRE regulation addressing the insertion of dispute resolution clauses in CC&R's "merely indicates that [the] clauses must be fair and meet certain minimum criteria in order to receive DRE approval." ( Villa Milano, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 833.) Nothing in the regulation addresses the enforceability of a binding arbitration clause on homeowners associations. 2005(Woodside, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 729 [noting lack of such evidence in concluding judicial reference provision was not procedurally unconscionable].) Real parties contend their agreements are adhesive even if they could have bought a home elsewhere, citing Villa Milano Homeowners Assn. v. II Davorge (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 819, 826-827 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 ], in which the court found a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions, which contained a binding arbitration clause covering construction and design defect claims, to be a contract of adhesion because the declaration was rec | 2 | 3 |
San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City & County of San Franciscogreen2 sentences2006Because the exclusion should not “swallow[] the binding arbitration rule” (San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 38 Cal.4th 653, 676 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 868 , 133 P.3d 1028 ]), we decline to construe “bodily injury” to include purely emotional distress. 2006Because the exclusion should not “swallow[] the binding arbitration rule” (San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 38 Cal.4th 653, 676 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 868 , 133 P.3d 1028 ]), we decline to construe “bodily injury” to include purely emotional distress. | 1 | 1 |
Woodside Homes of California, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2005(Woodside, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 729 [noting lack of such evidence in concluding judicial reference provision was not procedurally unconscionable].) Real parties contend their agreements are adhesive even if they could have bought a home elsewhere, citing Villa Milano Homeowners Assn. v. II Davorge (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 819, 826-827 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 ], in which the court found a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions, which contained a binding arbitration clause covering construction and design defect claims, to be a contract of adhesion because the declaration was rec | 1 | 1 |
Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolphgreen1 sentence2003In Green Tree , the plaintiff, purchaser of a mobilehome, sued her lender on various federal statutory grounds, including violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) ( 15 USC § 1601 et seq.) for failing to disclose certain finance charges. ( Green Tree, supra, 531 U. S. at pp. 82-83, 121 S.Ct. 513 .) The buyer's agreement with the lender contained a binding arbitration clause that included all statutory claims. | 1 | 1 |
Division of Labor Law Enforcement v. Dennisgreen2 sentences1978Law Enforcement v. Dennis (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 306, 309 [ 183 P.2d 932 ]) without regard to the statutory provisions on arbitration (Code Civ. 1978Law Enforcement v. Dennis (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 306, 309 [ 183 P.2d 932 ]) without regard to the statutory provisions on arbitration (Code Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Sublett v. Henry's Turk & Taylor Lunchgreen2 sentences1978In the absence of a binding arbitration clause in the agreement, appellant would have been free to pursue his remedies at law (Sublett v. Henry’s etc. Lunch (1942) 21 Cal.2d 273, 275 [ 131 P.2d 369 ]; Div. of Lab. 1978In the absence of a binding arbitration clause in the agreement, appellant would have been free to pursue his remedies at law (Sublett v. Henry’s etc. Lunch (1942) 21 Cal.2d 273, 275 [ 131 P.2d 369 ]; Div. of Lab. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sonoma Cty.
green
2 sentences2000"While courts have defined the substantive element in various ways, it traditionally involves contract terms that are so one-sided as to `shock the conscience,' or that impose harsh or oppressive terms. [Citation.]" ( 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 1213 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 533 .) Here, the homeowners, by agreeing to CC & R's that include a binding arbitration clause, waive their constitutional right to a jury trial. 2000“While courts have defined the substantive element in various ways, it traditionally involves contract terms that are so one-sided as to ‘shock the conscience,’ or that impose harsh or oppressive terms. [Citation.]” (24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 1213 .) Here, the homeowners, by agreeing to CC&R’s that include a binding arbitration clause, waive their constitutional right to a jury trial. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Aguilar v. Lerner
green
2 sentences2007Under the MFAA, a client may commit to binding arbitration only after a fee dispute arises. ( Alternative Systems, supra, at pp. 1042-1044, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 567 .) The issue here is whether Alternative Systems remains good law in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Aguilar v. Lerner (2004) 32 Cal.4th 974 , 12 Cal. Rptr.3d 287 , 88 P.3d 24 ( Aguilar) . 2007Under the MFAA, a client may commit to binding arbitration only after a fee dispute arises. ( Alternative Systems, supra, at pp. 1042-1044, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 567 .) The issue here is whether Alternative Systems remains good law in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Aguilar v. Lerner (2004) 32 Cal.4th 974 , 12 Cal. Rptr.3d 287 , 88 P.3d 24 ( Aguilar) . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Schatz v. ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE
neutral
2 sentences2007Here, the binding arbitration clause in the retainer agreement cannot be preempted by the MFAA because Kassel waived his right to proceed under the MFAA. 21 Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 674 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 173, 179 ]. * See footnote, ante, page 821. 2007Here, the binding arbitration clause in the retainer agreement cannot be preempted by the MFAA because Kassel waived his right to proceed under the MFAA. 21 Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 674 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 173, 179 ]. * See footnote, ante, page 821. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. Carey
green
2 sentences2007In Alternative Systems, Inc. v. Carey (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1034 , 79 Cal. Rptr.2d 567 ( Alternative Systems) , the court held the mandatory fee arbitration act (MFAA; Bus. & Prof.Code [1] § 6200 et seq.), which for public policy reasons entitles clients to nonbinding arbitration and trial de novo, supersedes a retainer agreement's binding arbitration clause when the client opts for the MFAA procedure. 2007In Alternative Systems, Inc. v. Carey (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1034 , 79 Cal. Rptr.2d 567 ( Alternative Systems) , the court held the mandatory fee arbitration act (MFAA; Bus. & Prof.Code [1] § 6200 et seq.), which for public policy reasons entitles clients to nonbinding arbitration and trial de novo, supersedes a retainer agreement's binding arbitration clause when the client opts for the MFAA procedure. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Harris v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1999The father signed an application form containing a binding arbitration clause, stating, “ T agree that any claim asserted . . . against Maxicare, Hawthorne Community Medical Group . . . their employees or other contracting health professionals ... is subject to binding arbitration.’” ( 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 477 .) Thereafter, the wife and daughter filed a malpractice action against Maxicare and their physician, Mansoor Mirsaidi, who was an employee of Hawthorne Community Medical Group (Hawthorne). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.