California Courts of Appeal
Apr. 2, 2015
Muddied waters on unconscionable arbitration agreements
A recent case creates confusion as to when a court will sever a provision that is clearly unconscionable versus finding the entire agreement to be unenforceable.
Timothy D. Reuben
Reuben MediationTim Reuben spent more than 40 years handling complex legal disputes in California's state and federal courts. As the founder and managing partner of Reuben Raucher & Blum in Los Angeles, he has worked on a wide range of matters through jury and bench trials, arbitration, mediation, judicial reference, and settlement conferences across multiple areas of civil law, including commercial, real estate, construction, employment, intellectual property, insurance, professional liability, and unfair competition.
For many California employers and employees, a mandatory arbitration policy is part and parcel of the employment relationship. How such an arbitration clause must read to be enforceable and not unconscionable has been the subject of many appellate opinions. Unfortunately, the 1st District Court of Appeal has muddied the waters as to when such arbitration agreements are enforceable.
In Serafin v. Balco Properties Ltd. LLC, 2015 DJDAR 3048, Justice Ignazio Ruvolo with Ju...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In