10 California opinions name it 2 courts 2018–2023 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2023(Tiri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 244 .) As we discussed, when challenging the enforceability of a delegation clause, “any claim of unconscionability must be 11 The delegation clause here did not use the term “exclusive authority,” but the arbitrator’s exclusive authority to determine issues of enforceability is implied by the provision that “[t]he arbitrator, and not any federal, state or local court or agency, shall have authority to decide any such issue or dispute.” (Italics added.) 19 specific to the delegation clause.”12 (Ibid., citing Rent-A-Center, supra, 561 U.S. at p. 73 .) We have 2023(Tiri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 244 .) As we discussed, when challenging the enforceability of a delegation clause, “any claim of unconscionability must be 11 The delegation clause here did not use the term “exclusive authority,” but the arbitrator’s exclusive authority to determine issues of enforceability is implied by the provision that “[t]he arbitrator, and not any federal, state or local court or agency, shall have authority to decide any such issue or dispute.” (Italics added.) 19 specific to the delegation clause.”12 (Ibid., citing Rent-A-Center, supra, 561 U.S. at p. 73 .) We have | 1 | 3 |
Nielsen Contracting, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc.green2 sentences2018If a party challenges the validity under § 2 [of the FAA] of the precise agreement to arbitrate at issue, the federal court must consider the challenge before ordering compliance with that agreement under § 4 [of the FAA]."].) "An exception to this rule applies when the parties have clearly and unmistakably agreed to delegate questions regarding the validity of the arbitration clause to the arbitrator." ( Nielsen , at p. 1108, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 282 .) These so-called "delegation clauses" are generally enforceable according to their terms, requiring the issue of arbitrability to be submitted to t 2018If a party challenges the validity under § 2 [of the FAA] of the precise agreement to arbitrate at issue, the federal court must consider the challenge before ordering compliance with that agreement under § 4 [of the FAA]."].) "An exception to this rule applies when the parties have clearly and unmistakably agreed to delegate questions regarding the validity of the arbitration clause to the arbitrator." ( Nielsen , at p. 1108, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 282 .) These so-called "delegation clauses" are generally enforceable according to their terms, requiring the issue of arbitrability to be submitted to t | 1 | 2 |
New Prime Inc. v. Oliveiragreen2 sentences2019(See New Prime , supra , --- U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. at p. 539 [articulating the same legal test for both concepts].) Although Minnieland addressed a delegation clause, the legal analysis for deciding whether a delegation clause should be enforced and whether the validity of an agreement to arbitrate is severable from the merits of the underlying dispute are the same. 2019(See New Prime, supra, ___U.S. at p. ___ [ 139 S.Ct. at p. 539 ] [articulating the same legal test for both concepts].) 9 parties are bound by a given arbitration clause,’ or ‘whether an arbitration clause in a concededly binding contract applies to a particular type of controversy.’ ” (BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentina (2014) 572 U.S. 25, 34 , citation omitted.) However, in a line of cases beginning with Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. | 1 | 2 |
Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc.green1 sentence2023An arbitration agreement imposed as a condition of employment with no opportunity to negotiate is typically adhesive and demonstrates some level of procedural unconscionability. ( Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 113, 114–115 [adhesive contract is a standardized contract that, “ ‘imposed and drafted by the party of superior strength, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it’ ”]; Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1237, 1244 [adhesive contracts “ ‘contain a degree of procedural unconscionability even without any notable surpr | 1 | 1 |
Cuccia v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2020(See Rent-A- Center, supra, 561 U.S. at p. 70 [“[a]n agreement to arbitrate a gateway issue is simply an additional, antecedent agreement the party seeking arbitration asks the federal court to enforce, and the FAA operates on this additional arbitration agreement just as it does on any other”]; Jackpot Harvesting, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 719, 730, fn. 11 (Jackpot Harvesting) [“[t]he same legal test governs the inquiries whether an arbitration agreement is severable from the rest of the contract such that a court should decide its validity and whether a court o | 1 | 1 |
Walsh v. West Valley Mission Cmty. Coll. Dist.green1 sentence2020(See Rent-A- Center, supra, 561 U.S. at p. 70 [“[a]n agreement to arbitrate a gateway issue is simply an additional, antecedent agreement the party seeking arbitration asks the federal court to enforce, and the FAA operates on this additional arbitration agreement just as it does on any other”]; Jackpot Harvesting, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 719, 730, fn. 11 (Jackpot Harvesting) [“[t]he same legal test governs the inquiries whether an arbitration agreement is severable from the rest of the contract such that a court should decide its validity and whether a court o | 1 | 1 |
GWARTZ v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2020(See Rent-A- Center, supra, 561 U.S. at p. 70 [“[a]n agreement to arbitrate a gateway issue is simply an additional, antecedent agreement the party seeking arbitration asks the federal court to enforce, and the FAA operates on this additional arbitration agreement just as it does on any other”]; Jackpot Harvesting, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 719, 730, fn. 11 (Jackpot Harvesting) [“[t]he same legal test governs the inquiries whether an arbitration agreement is severable from the rest of the contract such that a court should decide its validity and whether a court o | 1 | 1 |
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2020(See Rent-A- Center, supra, 561 U.S. at p. 70 [“[a]n agreement to arbitrate a gateway issue is simply an additional, antecedent agreement the party seeking arbitration asks the federal court to enforce, and the FAA operates on this additional arbitration agreement just as it does on any other”]; Jackpot Harvesting, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 719, 730, fn. 11 (Jackpot Harvesting) [“[t]he same legal test governs the inquiries whether an arbitration agreement is severable from the rest of the contract such that a court should decide its validity and whether a court o | 1 | 1 |
Jackpot Harvesting, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc.green1 sentence2020(See Rent-A- Center, supra, 561 U.S. at p. 70 [“[a]n agreement to arbitrate a gateway issue is simply an additional, antecedent agreement the party seeking arbitration asks the federal court to enforce, and the FAA operates on this additional arbitration agreement just as it does on any other”]; Jackpot Harvesting, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 719, 730, fn. 11 (Jackpot Harvesting) [“[t]he same legal test governs the inquiries whether an arbitration agreement is severable from the rest of the contract such that a court should decide its validity and whether a court o | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan
green
2 sentences2018(First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944 ; Aanderud, at pp. 891-892; Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 239 .) In Rent-A-Center, the United States Supreme Court addressed the question of who rules on a challenge to the enforceability of a delegation clause: does the court decide or does the arbitrator decide? 2018(First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944 ; Aanderud, at pp. 891-892; Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 239 .) In Rent-A-Center, the United States Supreme Court addressed the question of who rules on a challenge to the enforceability of a delegation clause: does the court decide or does the arbitrator decide? | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018(First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944 ; Aanderud, at pp. 891-892; Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 239 .) In Rent-A-Center, the United States Supreme Court addressed the question of who rules on a challenge to the enforceability of a delegation clause: does the court decide or does the arbitrator decide? 2018(First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944 ; Aanderud, at pp. 891-892; Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 239 .) In Rent-A-Center, the United States Supreme Court addressed the question of who rules on a challenge to the enforceability of a delegation clause: does the court decide or does the arbitrator decide? | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.
green
1 sentence2023An arbitration agreement imposed as a condition of employment with no opportunity to negotiate is typically adhesive and demonstrates some level of procedural unconscionability. ( Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 113, 114–115 [adhesive contract is a standardized contract that, “ ‘imposed and drafted by the party of superior strength, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it’ ”]; Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1237, 1244 [adhesive contracts “ ‘contain a degree of procedural unconscionability even without any notable surpr | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023(Tiri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 244 .) As we discussed, when challenging the enforceability of a delegation clause, “any claim of unconscionability must be 11 The delegation clause here did not use the term “exclusive authority,” but the arbitrator’s exclusive authority to determine issues of enforceability is implied by the provision that “[t]he arbitrator, and not any federal, state or local court or agency, shall have authority to decide any such issue or dispute.” (Italics added.) 19 specific to the delegation clause.”12 (Ibid., citing Rent-A-Center, supra, 561 U.S. at p. 73 .) We have | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Coleman v. Medtronic, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022(See Coleman v. Medtronic, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 413, 428 .) But the enforceability of a delegation clause is not a pure question of law. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Mfg. Co.
green
1 sentence2021Instead, the court considered whether, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, an arbitrator’s award should be vacated because the arbitration had been “undertaken to enforce a contract that [was] ‘illegal and against the public policy of the state.’” (Sheppard Mullin, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 73 .) Thus, its holding has no application to the issue at hand, that is, whether the delegation clause is severable and enforceable. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
City of Morgan Hill v. Brown
green
2 sentences2019(See City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114 , 1121, fn. 5, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 361 .) The same legal test governs the inquiries whether an arbitration agreement is severable from the rest of the contract such that a court should decide its validity and whether a court or an arbitrator should review the enforceability of a delegation clause. 2019(See City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114 , 1121, fn. 5, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 361 .) The same legal test governs the inquiries whether an arbitration agreement is severable from the rest of the contract such that a court should decide its validity and whether a court or an arbitrator should review the enforceability of a delegation clause. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentina
green
1 sentence2019(See New Prime, supra, ___U.S. at p. ___ [ 139 S.Ct. at p. 539 ] [articulating the same legal test for both concepts].) 9 parties are bound by a given arbitration clause,’ or ‘whether an arbitration clause in a concededly binding contract applies to a particular type of controversy.’ ” (BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentina (2014) 572 U.S. 25, 34 , citation omitted.) However, in a line of cases beginning with Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.