GregG

User:GregG (view source)

Revision as of 13:55, August 7, 2015

1,429 bytes removed , 13:55, August 7, 2015

CA Supreme Court upheld arbitration agreement in Sanchez

Line 10: Line 10:

One of my side projects is creating a federal bill to give consumers and employees in arbitration due process protections, based on [[Jeff Sessions]]'s [[Fair Arbitration Act]]. This project is discussed on [http://fairarbitration.blogspot.com/ my blog].

−

~~==Court cases I'm following==~~

−

~~(Note that since I do not have PACER access and some of the cases I follow are state court cases, this information may be incomplete. Also, I may neglect to update it on a regular basis.)~~

−

~~;''Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.'', before Cal. Supreme Court~~

−

:After SCOTUS's ''[[AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion]]'' decision holding state rules requiring class actions to be available as preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's refusal to grant Valencia's motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that the contractual provision for an appeal in certain circumstances and the carve-out for relief Valencia would be likely to seek was substantively unconscionable. Valencia petitioned for certiorari, and the California Supreme Court granted it; the Supreme Court will determine whether the Court of Appeals' refusal to enforce the arbitration provision on the grounds of the one-sidedness of the appeals clause and the carve-out for relief likely to be sought by Valencia is also preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.

−

:The sad part is that it has been nearly three and a half years since the Court of Appeals' ruling, and the California Supreme Court finally held oral arguments on May 5, 2015 (meaning that a decision is due in August 2015). These sorts of delays in the court system may well defeat the point of agreeing to arbitration.

==Quotes==

GregG

Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback

3,135

edits