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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's Not a Debate
Taylor v. Tesla , No. A168333 (D1d4 Aug. 8, 2024) Plaintiffs in this case are also members of a class in a race discrimination class action ...
-
RSB Vineyards, LLC v. Orsi , No. A143781 (D1d3 Sept. 29, 2017) In this real estate warranty case, the court affirms a summary judgment in ...
-
Pollock v. Superior Court , No. B321229 (D2d1 Jul. 31, 2023) Back in 2019, the Legislature amended Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280 to inc...
No comments:
Post a Comment