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)
We've Moved ....
After a two-year hiatus, 111 North Hill Street has decided to decamp for Substack. Thank you for your readership over the last twelve year...
-
Soto v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc. , No. B252995 (D2d4, as modified August 20, 2015) Although some law-and-economics attuned federal judges...
-
The Rossdale Grp. v. Walton , No. H043476 (D6 Apr. 15, 2017) This is a weird and kind of narrow opinion about standing that is mostly shap...
No comments:
Post a Comment