Friday, March 29, 2019

That Just Might Be Unconscionable

Salgado v. Carrows Rests., Inc., No. B285756 (D2d6 Mar. 25, 2019)

Appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The Court here reverses, finding that the case is within the scope of the clause. But there’s a hitch. Plaintiff was represented by counsel (and indeed had filed the case) when she was confronted by her Employer, who demanded that she sign the agreement. Employer was not there. So if Employer knew Plaintiff was represented at the time the agreement was signed, but nonetheless went around the attorney, the contract might be unconscionable. The Court remands to the trial court to figure that out.

Reversed and remanded.

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Jurisprudence of Signification

Wood v. Superior Court , No. A168463 (D1d2 Mar. 14, 2024). Yes. You can change your legal name to Candi Bimbo Doll if you want to. See Cod...