application of any unconscionable clause in California

2026In the context of Civil Code section 1599, a court may “ ‘sever[] or restrict[] illegal terms rather than voiding the entire contract.’ ” (Ramirez, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 514, quoting Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 123 , italics added.) Similarly, subdivision (a) of Civil Code section 1670.5 provides that a court may merely “limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.” It is arguable that no act of severing (i.e., striking) language from the DRP will result in eliminating only the PAGA claim waiver contained in the DRP without affecting other

2026In the context of Civil Code section 1599, a court may “ ‘sever[] or restrict[] illegal terms rather than voiding the entire contract.’ ” (Ramirez, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 514, quoting Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 123 , italics added.) Similarly, subdivision (a) of Civil Code section 1670.5 provides that a court may merely “limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.” It is arguable that no act of severing (i.e., striking) language from the DRP will result in eliminating only the PAGA claim waiver contained in the DRP without affecting other

2013It states: “If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.” Unconscionability “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.‟ [C

2003Proc, §§ 1281, 1281.2 [1] Civil Code section 1670.5 sets forth standards for unconscionability as follows: "If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court *453 may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result." Courts analyze the unconscionability standard in Civil Code section 1670.5 as invoking elements of procedural and substan

2007(Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 114 ; A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 473, 486-487 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 114 ] .. ..)” (Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 77, 87 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 267 ], fn. omitted.) Civil Code section 1670.5, subdivision (a) states: “If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscio

2007(Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 114 ; A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 473, 486-487 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 114 ] .. ..)” (Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 77, 87 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 267 ], fn. omitted.) Civil Code section 1670.5, subdivision (a) states: “If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscio

2015(See Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 899, 911 (Sanchez); Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 247 .) “Under California law, courts may refuse to enforce any contract found ‘to have been unconscionable at the time it was made,’ or may ‘limit the application of any unconscionable clause.’ Cal. Civ.

2015(See Sanchez, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 911 ; Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 247 .) “Under California law, courts may refuse to enforce any contract found ‘to have been unconscionable at the time it was made,’ or may ‘limit the application of any unconscionable clause.’ Cal. Civ.

2023The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Declining to Sever the Unconscionable Arbitration Provisions Civil Code section 1670.5, subdivision (a), provides: “If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.” “The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to mean that if a tr

2020Civil Code section 1670.5, subdivision (a) states that “[i]f the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or 18 it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.”3 The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to mean that if a trial court concludes that an arbitration agreement contains unconscionable terms, it then “must determin

2007(Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 114 ; A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 473, 486-487 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 114 ] .. ..)” (Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 77, 87 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 267 ], fn. omitted.) Civil Code section 1670.5, subdivision (a) states: “If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscio

2007(Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 114 ; A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 473, 486-487 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 114 ] .. ..)” (Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 77, 87 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 267 ], fn. omitted.) Civil Code section 1670.5, subdivision (a) states: “If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscio

2026If the illegality is collateral to the main purpose of the contract, and the illegal provision can be extirpated from the contract by means of 6 We note that for purposes of an unconscionability analysis, it is irrelevant that Stoker did not assert any PAGA claims. “ ‘In determining unconscionability, our inquiry is into whether a contract provision was “unconscionable at the time it was made.” ’ ” (Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1109, 1134 , italics added; see also Najarro v. Superior Court (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 871 , 882–883; Hasty, supra, 98 Cal.App.5th at p. 1063.) 24

2015(AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2010) 563 U.S. 333 , 131 S. Ct. at p. 1746; Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1109, 1142 (Sonic-Calabasas).) Under California law, courts may refuse to enforce any contract found “to have been unconscionable at the time it was made[,]” or may “limit the application of any unconscionable clause. . . .” (Civ.

2003Proc, §§ 1281, 1281.2 [1] Civil Code section 1670.5 sets forth standards for unconscionability as follows: "If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court *453 may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result." Courts analyze the unconscionability standard in Civil Code section 1670.5 as invoking elements of procedural and substan

2003Proc, §§ 1281, 1281.2 [1] Civil Code section 1670.5 sets forth standards for unconscionability as follows: "If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court *453 may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result." Courts analyze the unconscionability standard in Civil Code section 1670.5 as invoking elements of procedural and substan

2013But they need not be present in the same degree. . . . [T]he more substantively oppressive the contract term, the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required to come to the conclusion that the term is unenforceable, and vice versa.‖ (Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 114 , citations omitted; accord, Bruni v. Didion (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1272 , 1288–1289.) ―The party resisting arbitration bears the burden of proving unconscionability.‖ (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 247 .) ―‗The procedural element of unconscionabilit

2013But they need not be present in the same degree. . . . [T]he more substantively oppressive the contract term, the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required to come to the conclusion that the term is unenforceable, and vice versa.‖ (Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 114 , citations omitted; accord, Bruni v. Didion (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1272 , 1288–1289.) ―The party resisting arbitration bears the burden of proving unconscionability.‖ (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 247 .) ―‗The procedural element of unconscionabilit

2003(Perdue v. Crocker National Bank (1985) 38 Cal.3d 913, 925 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 702 P.2d 503 ] ....) As section 1670.5, subdivision (a) states: ‘If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.’ ” (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 114

2003(Perdue v. Crocker National Bank (1985) 38 Cal.3d 913, 925 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 702 P.2d 503 ] ....) As section 1670.5, subdivision (a) states: ‘If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.’ ” (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 114

2025A contract is unconscionable if one of the parties lacked a meaningful choice in deciding whether to agree and the contract contains terms that are unreasonably favorable to the other party.” (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 125 (OTO).) The unconscionability doctrine thus has a procedural element and a substantive element.

2024A contract is unconscionable if one of the parties lacked a meaningful choice in deciding whether to agree and the contract contains terms that are unreasonably favorable to the other party. [Citation.] Under this standard, the unconscionability doctrine ‘ “has both a procedural and a substantive element.” ’ [Citation.] ‘The procedural element addresses the circumstances of contract negotiation and formation, focusing on oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining power. [Citations.] Substantive unconscionability pertains to the fairness of an agreement’s actual terms and to assessments o

2016The Unconscionability Doctrine “ ‘Unconscionability is a judicially created doctrine, which the Legislature codified in 1979.’ ” (Nyulassy v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1280 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 296 ].) Civil Code section 1670.5 provides, “If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid an

2016The Unconscionability Doctrine “ ‘Unconscionability is a judicially created doctrine, which the Legislature codified in 1979.’ ” (Nyulassy v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1280 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 296 ].) Civil Code section 1670.5 provides, “If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid an

2014(Lhotka v. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 816, 821 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 844 ].) DISCUSSION If a court finds as a matter of law that a contract or any clause of a contract is unconscionable, the court may refuse to enforce the contract or clause, or it may limit the application of any unconscionable clause so as to avoid any unconscionable result.

2014(Lhotka v. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 816, 821 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 844 ].) DISCUSSION If a court finds as a matter of law that a contract or any clause of a contract is unconscionable, the court may refuse to enforce the contract or clause, or it may limit the application of any unconscionable clause so as to avoid any unconscionable result.

2014It states: “If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.” This provision applies to arbitration agreements.1 (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114 (Armendariz), abrogated in part on another ground in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2

2013(Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 236 ; Roman v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1468-1469 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 153 ] (Roman); Samaniego v. Empire Today, LLC (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1144 [ 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 492 ].) 2.

2013(Murphy v. Check 'N Go of California, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 138, 144 .) In this case, Portfolio never asked the trial court to exercise its discretion to sever the unconscionable provisions.

2013(Murphy v. Check 'N Go of California, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 138, 144 .) The trial court refused to sever the unconscionable provisions because it found the arbitration agreement was "permeated with unconscionability" and this problem could not "be cured by severing the offensive provisions . . . ." This conclusion was based on the court's finding that there were multiple unconscionable provisions.

2015(See Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 899, 911 (Sanchez); Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 247 .) “Under California law, courts may refuse to enforce any contract found ‘to have been unconscionable at the time it was made,’ or may ‘limit the application of any unconscionable clause.’ Cal. Civ.

2015(See Sanchez, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 911 ; Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 247 .) “Under California law, courts may refuse to enforce any contract found ‘to have been unconscionable at the time it was made,’ or may ‘limit the application of any unconscionable clause.’ Cal. Civ.

2009One, based upon the common law doctrine, was outlined by the California Supreme Court in Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 807 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 ] (Graham).

1989Section 1281.6 provides for judicial appointment of an arbitrator “if the agreed method fails or for any reason cannot be followed.” (Cf. Graham, supra, 28 Cal.3d 807, 831 .) 5 The statute states: “(a) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. []|] (b) When it is claimed or ap

2018(See, e.g., Suh v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1504 , 1516–1517 [court could not excise limitations on remedies in arbitration clause because they were “significant elements of the contract”].) Because we are not permitted to cure the deficiencies by reforming or augmenting the contract’s terms, we must void the entire agreement.

2013Code, § 1670.5, subd. (a).) Consistent with the Legislature’s statutory scheme, “California courts have uniformly acknowledged that there is a strong public policy in favor of arbitration. [Citations.] Thus, ‘doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues are to be resolved in favor of arbitration. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Suh v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1504, 1511-1512 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 585 ]; see Wagner Construction Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 19, 25-26 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 434 , 157 P.3d 1029 ] [arbitration statutes “reflect a ‘ “strong public policy in f

2009General Principles of Unconscionability Unconscionability is codified in Civil Code section 1670.5, subdivision (a), which states: “If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court *1568 may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.” A panel of this court, in Morris v. Redwood Empire Bancorp (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1305 [ 27 Cal.

2009General Principles of Unconscionability Unconscionability is codified in Civil Code section 1670.5, subdivision (a), which states: “If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court *1568 may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.” A panel of this court, in Morris v. Redwood Empire Bancorp (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1305 [ 27 Cal.

2023(See Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 712 [“As a general rule, an appellate court will not review an issue that was not raised by some proper method by a party in the trial court.”].) Moreover, although Sunstock cites an Investopedia article stating that the “general rate is typically 2 to 2.5%,” Sunstock does not explain why that rate should apply in this case.

2023Procedural Unconscionability Our Supreme Court has often explained that “[a] procedural unconscionability analysis ‘begins with an inquiry into whether the contract is one of adhesion.’ (Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 113 .) An adhesive contract is standardized, generally on a preprinted form, and offered by the party with superior bargaining power ‘on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.’ (Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1237, 1245 (Baltazar); see Armendariz, at p. 113.) Arbitration contracts imposed as a condition of employment are typically adhesive (see Armendariz, at pp. 114–1

2023Procedural Unconscionability Our Supreme Court has often explained that “[a] procedural unconscionability analysis ‘begins with an inquiry into whether the contract is one of adhesion.’ (Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 113 .) An adhesive contract is standardized, generally on a preprinted form, and offered by the party with superior bargaining power ‘on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.’ (Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1237, 1245 (Baltazar); see Armendariz, at p. 113.) Arbitration contracts imposed as a condition of employment are typically adhesive (see Armendariz, at pp. 114–1

2022Section 1670.5, subdivision (a) provides that “[i]f the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.” As noted above, we review the trial court’s decision to sever or not to sever unconscionable provisions for abuse of discretion. ( Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 121-125; see Baxt

2021(City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 758 [future liability for ordinary negligence generally may be released] (Santa Barbara); 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, § 1292, p. 686.) “If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.” (Civ.