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 CEO
Reuben, Raucher & Blum
Phone: (310) 777-1990
Email: treuben@rrbattorneys.com
Reuben is the founder and CEO at Reuben Raucher & Blum. Alongside his extensive career as a civil litigator specializing in complex matters at both the trial and appellate level, he serves pro bono as a temporary judge and settlement officer for the Los Angeles Superior Court, as well as a fee arbitrator for the LA County Bar.
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