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 1990–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Flores v. Transamerica HomeFirst, Inc.green2 sentences2007Flores, for example, concerned a "Loan Agreement and Note" and deed of trust for a reverse mortgage with a mandatory arbitration clause, which did not appear until page 11, section 20 of the 14-page agreement. ( Flores, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 849 , 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 376 .) Moreover, the "IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR ALL BORROWERS" given to the 80- and 76-year-old plaintiffs indicated they were required to sign the standardized loan documents in order to establish the reverse mortgage; the plaintiffs were never told the loan documents were negotiable; and the mortgage company representative tol 2007Flores, for example, concerned a "Loan Agreement and Note" and deed of trust for a reverse mortgage with a mandatory arbitration clause, which did not appear until page 11, section 20 of the 14-page agreement. ( Flores, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 849 , 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 376 .) Moreover, the "IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR ALL BORROWERS" given to the 80- and 76-year-old plaintiffs indicated they were required to sign the standardized loan documents in order to establish the reverse mortgage; the plaintiffs were never told the loan documents were negotiable; and the mortgage company representative tol | 1 | 2 |
Marin Storage Inc. v. Benco Contractinggreen2 sentences2007Marin Storage involved an indemnification clause that appeared on the reverse side of a document that described itself as a "Work Authorization and Contract," but which was more obviously an invoice for *363 work performed than a contract. ( Marin Storage, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 1047, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 645 .) The reverse side was difficult to read and was presented for signature at the job site with no reasonable opportunity to read or consider the terms, and, according to the evidence, the document was treated by the plaintiff corporation as an invoice, not a contract purporting to modify 2007Marin Storage involved an indemnification clause that appeared on the reverse side of a document that described itself as a "Work Authorization and Contract," but which was more obviously an invoice for *363 work performed than a contract. ( Marin Storage, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 1047, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 645 .) The reverse side was difficult to read and was presented for signature at the job site with no reasonable opportunity to read or consider the terms, and, according to the evidence, the document was treated by the plaintiff corporation as an invoice, not a contract purporting to modify | 1 | 1 |
Broughton v. Cigna Healthplansgreen2 sentences2003In Broughton , the plaintiffs sued a defendant that had provided them with health care coverage. ( Broughton, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1072 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 , 988 P.2d 67 .) They alleged in part that the defendant had violated the CLRA by deceptively advertising the quality of medical services provided under its health plan. ( Broughton, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1072 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 , 988 P.2d 67 .) They requested actual damages, punitive damages, and an order enjoining the defendant's deceptive conduct. ( Ibid. ) The defendant moved to compel arbitration, relying on a mandatory arbitra 2003In Broughton , the plaintiffs sued a defendant that had provided them with health care coverage. ( Broughton, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1072 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 , 988 P.2d 67 .) They alleged in part that the defendant had violated the CLRA by deceptively advertising the quality of medical services provided under its health plan. ( Broughton, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1072 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 , 988 P.2d 67 .) They requested actual damages, punitive damages, and an order enjoining the defendant's deceptive conduct. ( Ibid. ) The defendant moved to compel arbitration, relying on a mandatory arbitra | 1 | 1 |
Ware v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.green2 sentences1990(Ibid.) In Ware v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 35, 39, 40-41 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 791 ], affirmed sub nom. 1990(Ibid.) In Ware v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 35, 39, 40-41 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 791 ], affirmed sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mercuro v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2013The only ‗employment disputes‘ likely to be initiated by [the employer]—such as claims that an employee violated a non-competition agreement or divulged confidential information—need not be arbitrated. [¶] . . . [¶] In short, the arbitration clause provides the employer more rights and greater remedies than would otherwise be available and concomitantly deprives employees of significant rights and remedies they would normally enjoy.‖ ( Stirlen, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1540–1542, italics added.) In Mercuro, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th 167 , ―[t]he arbitration agreement specifically cover[ed] cla 2013The only ‗employment disputes‘ likely to be initiated by [the employer]—such as claims that an employee violated a non-competition agreement or divulged confidential information—need not be arbitrated. [¶] . . . [¶] In short, the arbitration clause provides the employer more rights and greater remedies than would otherwise be available and concomitantly deprives employees of significant rights and remedies they would normally enjoy.‖ ( Stirlen, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1540–1542, italics added.) In Mercuro, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th 167 , ―[t]he arbitration agreement specifically cover[ed] cla | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013This would amount to denial of the underlying cause of action, which would be preserved in name only.‖ ( Stirlen, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1539– 1540.) The court continued: ―The mandatory arbitration requirement can only realistically be seen as applying primarily if not exclusively to claims arising out of the termination of employment, which are virtually certain to be filed against, not by, [the employer]. [The employer] identifies no provision of the employment contract and no statute likely to give rise to a claim [it] would be compelled to submit to arbitration. 2013This would amount to denial of the underlying cause of action, which would be preserved in name only.‖ ( Stirlen, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1539– 1540.) The court continued: ―The mandatory arbitration requirement can only realistically be seen as applying primarily if not exclusively to claims arising out of the termination of employment, which are virtually certain to be filed against, not by, [the employer]. [The employer] identifies no provision of the employment contract and no statute likely to give rise to a claim [it] would be compelled to submit to arbitration. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Discover Bank v. Superior Court
red
2 sentences2007(Discover Bank, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 154 .) The bank informed the plaintiff that continued use of the card would be deemed acceptance of the new terms unless the cardholder notified the bank that he did not want to accept the new terms and ceased using his account. 2007The bank informed the plaintiff that continued use of the card would be deemed acceptance of the new terms unless the cardholder notified the bank that he did not want to accept the new terms and ceased using his account. ( Discover Bank, supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. *360 154, 160, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 , 113 P.3d 1100 .) "[T]he doctrine has `"both a "procedural" and a "substantive" element,' the former focusing on `"oppression"' or `"surprise"' due to unequal bargaining power, the latter on `"overly harsh"' "or" `"one-sided"' results." [Citation.] The procedural element of an unconscionable contract | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Ellis v. Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Clark County
neutral
2 sentences2018Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2011) 565 U.S. 973 [state Labor Code grievance procedure]; Affiliated Computer Servs. v. Fensterstock (2011) 564 U.S. 1001 [consumer class action involving student loan payments]; Cellco P’ship v. Litman (2011) 563 U.S. 971 [consumer class action against telephone company]; Branch Banking and Trust v. Gordon (2011) 565 U.S. 1031 [bank arbitration agreement]; Missouri Title Loans, Inc. v. Brewer (2011) 563 U.S. 971 [class action waiver in car loan dispute]; Sonic Auto., Inc. v. Watts (2011) 563 U.S. 971 [class action waiver 2 But a road well-traveled does not 2018Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2011) 565 U.S. 973 [state Labor Code grievance procedure]; Affiliated Computer Servs. v. Fensterstock (2011) 564 U.S. 1001 [consumer class action involving student loan payments]; Cellco P’ship v. Litman (2011) 563 U.S. 971 [consumer class action against telephone company]; Branch Banking and Trust v. Gordon (2011) 565 U.S. 1031 [bank arbitration agreement]; Missouri Title Loans, Inc. v. Brewer (2011) 563 U.S. 971 [class action waiver in car loan dispute]; Sonic Auto., Inc. v. Watts (2011) 563 U.S. 971 [class action waiver 2 But a road well-traveled does not | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Cate v. Pirtle
green
1 sentence2018Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2011) 565 U.S. 973 [state Labor Code grievance procedure]; Affiliated Computer Servs. v. Fensterstock (2011) 564 U.S. 1001 [consumer class action involving student loan payments]; Cellco P’ship v. Litman (2011) 563 U.S. 971 [consumer class action against telephone company]; Branch Banking and Trust v. Gordon (2011) 565 U.S. 1031 [bank arbitration agreement]; Missouri Title Loans, Inc. v. Brewer (2011) 563 U.S. 971 [class action waiver in car loan dispute]; Sonic Auto., Inc. v. Watts (2011) 563 U.S. 971 [class action waiver 2 But a road well-traveled does not | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Morales v. United States
green
1 sentence2018Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2011) 565 U.S. 973 [state Labor Code grievance procedure]; Affiliated Computer Servs. v. Fensterstock (2011) 564 U.S. 1001 [consumer class action involving student loan payments]; Cellco P’ship v. Litman (2011) 563 U.S. 971 [consumer class action against telephone company]; Branch Banking and Trust v. Gordon (2011) 565 U.S. 1031 [bank arbitration agreement]; Missouri Title Loans, Inc. v. Brewer (2011) 563 U.S. 971 [class action waiver in car loan dispute]; Sonic Auto., Inc. v. Watts (2011) 563 U.S. 971 [class action waiver 2 But a road well-traveled does not | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno
green
1 sentence2018Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2011) 565 U.S. 973 [state Labor Code grievance procedure]; Affiliated Computer Servs. v. Fensterstock (2011) 564 U.S. 1001 [consumer class action involving student loan payments]; Cellco P’ship v. Litman (2011) 563 U.S. 971 [consumer class action against telephone company]; Branch Banking and Trust v. Gordon (2011) 565 U.S. 1031 [bank arbitration agreement]; Missouri Title Loans, Inc. v. Brewer (2011) 563 U.S. 971 [class action waiver in car loan dispute]; Sonic Auto., Inc. v. Watts (2011) 563 U.S. 971 [class action waiver 2 But a road well-traveled does not | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Valentine Capital Asset Management, Inc. v. Agahi
green
1 sentence2014FINRA Rule 12200 refers to arbitration of disputes between a customer and a member or associated person of a member that “arise[] in connection with the business activities of the member or the associated person . . . .” (Italics added.) Valentine Capital, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th 606 , considered similar language contained FINRA Rule 13200, which requires arbitration of disputes between or among FINRA members and associated persons “if the dispute arises out of the business activities of a member or an associated person.” Valentine Capital concluded the matters falling within the mandatory arbi | 1 | 2014–2014 |
C & L Enterprises Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma
green
1 sentence2008Judgment upon the award may be entered by any party in any court having jurisdiction.” Citing C&L Enterprises, supra, 532 U.S. 411 , the Department asserts this mandatory arbitration clause in agreements between California consumers and the payday loan companies constitutes an express waiver of immunity for all purposes. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Wise v. Tidal Const. Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2008The express written warranty was issued to the plaintiffs as part of the sale contract, which incorporated this warranty booklet with the mandatory arbitration clause under the FAA.” (Id. at p. 672 [ 583 S.E.2d at p. 468 ].) The court held the arbitration clause applied to breach of contract and negligence claims as well as warranty claims, but the homebuilder waived arbitration by participating in litigation. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007The bank informed the plaintiff that continued use of the card would be deemed acceptance of the new terms unless the cardholder notified the bank that he did not want to accept the new terms and ceased using his account. ( Discover Bank, supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. *360 154, 160, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 , 113 P.3d 1100 .) "[T]he doctrine has `"both a "procedural" and a "substantive" element,' the former focusing on `"oppression"' or `"surprise"' due to unequal bargaining power, the latter on `"overly harsh"' "or" `"one-sided"' results." [Citation.] The procedural element of an unconscionable contract 2007The bank informed the plaintiff that continued use of the card would be deemed acceptance of the new terms unless the cardholder notified the bank that he did not want to accept the new terms and ceased using his account. ( Discover Bank, supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. *360 154, 160, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 , 113 P.3d 1100 .) "[T]he doctrine has `"both a "procedural" and a "substantive" element,' the former focusing on `"oppression"' or `"surprise"' due to unequal bargaining power, the latter on `"overly harsh"' "or" `"one-sided"' results." [Citation.] The procedural element of an unconscionable contract | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Of the greatest overall significance is the fact that it imposes on the employee only a unilateral obligation to arbitrate: “In assessing substantive unconscionability, the paramount consideration is mutuality.” (Abramson, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 664 .) Given the high degree of substantive unconscionability therefore, we readily hold that this fact—coupled with the lower quantum of procedural unconscionability discussed ante—warrants the conclusion that the mandatory arbitration agreement is unconscionable. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.
green
2 sentences2004Public policy considerations: Armendariz & Little Four years ago, in Armendariz , the Supreme Court considered a challenge to a mandatory arbitration clause contained in the employment agreements of two employees. { Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th 83 .) The employees claimed that, as a matter of law, they could not be compelled to arbitrate their statutory discrimination claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. 2004(Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 114 .) As we have noted, the mandatory arbitration clause in the employment agreement has at least three features that make it substantively unconscionable. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.
green
2 sentences2003In Broughton , the plaintiffs sued a defendant that had provided them with health care coverage. ( Broughton, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1072 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 , 988 P.2d 67 .) They alleged in part that the defendant had violated the CLRA by deceptively advertising the quality of medical services provided under its health plan. ( Broughton, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1072 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 , 988 P.2d 67 .) They requested actual damages, punitive damages, and an order enjoining the defendant's deceptive conduct. ( Ibid. ) The defendant moved to compel arbitration, relying on a mandatory arbitra 2003In Broughton , the plaintiffs sued a defendant that had provided them with health care coverage. ( Broughton, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1072 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 , 988 P.2d 67 .) They alleged in part that the defendant had violated the CLRA by deceptively advertising the quality of medical services provided under its health plan. ( Broughton, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1072 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 , 988 P.2d 67 .) They requested actual damages, punitive damages, and an order enjoining the defendant's deceptive conduct. ( Ibid. ) The defendant moved to compel arbitration, relying on a mandatory arbitra | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.
green
2 sentences2003In Broughton , the plaintiffs sued a defendant that had provided them with health care coverage. ( Broughton, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1072 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 , 988 P.2d 67 .) They alleged in part that the defendant had violated the CLRA by deceptively advertising the quality of medical services provided under its health plan. ( Broughton, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1072 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 , 988 P.2d 67 .) They requested actual damages, punitive damages, and an order enjoining the defendant's deceptive conduct. ( Ibid. ) The defendant moved to compel arbitration, relying on a mandatory arbitra 2003In Broughton , the plaintiffs sued a defendant that had provided them with health care coverage. ( Broughton, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1072 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 , 988 P.2d 67 .) They alleged in part that the defendant had violated the CLRA by deceptively advertising the quality of medical services provided under its health plan. ( Broughton, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1072 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 , 988 P.2d 67 .) They requested actual damages, punitive damages, and an order enjoining the defendant's deceptive conduct. ( Ibid. ) The defendant moved to compel arbitration, relying on a mandatory arbitra | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.