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
Founder and President of Reuben Raucher & Blum and the Founder of Reuben Mediation
Email: treuben@rrbattorneys.com
Timothy D. Reuben is a mediator, litigator and author who focuses on resolving complex civil disputes in state and federal courts, as well as in arbitration and mediation. He is also the author of "Tequila, a Story of Success, Love & Violence," a legal novel inspired by real world legal practice that explores power, loyalty and the human dynamics that drive conflict.
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
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first 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