California Court of Appeal

In a putative class action challenging an employer's allegedly unlawful misclassification of its carpet installers as independent contractors, the trial court's denial of the employer's motion to compel arbitration is affirmed, where: 1) the agreement to arbitrate was unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable under California law; 2) the trial court properly declined to enforce the entire arbitration clause rather than sever unconscionable provisions; and 3) the trial court correctly applied California law despite an Illinois choice-of-law provision in the agreement; and 4) AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011) did not extend the Federal Arbitration Act so broadly as to preempt each unconscionability-based rationale that supported the trial court's refusal to compel arbitration.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/08/2012
• Published 05/08/2012

Judges

• Siggins

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Elwood Lui, William C. McNeill, III