United States Ninth Circuit

In an appeal from the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1981 race discrimination claim and compelling arbitration, the order is affirmed in part where the district court did not err in determining that the cost-sharing provision of the parties' arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable. However, the ruling is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the question of whether the parties' agreement was unconscionable was for the court to decide; and 2) the district court failed to address whether certain provisions of the agreement were substantively unconscionable.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/09/2009
• Published 09/09/2009

Judges

• Before: CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, THOMAS G. NELSON and SIDNEY R. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Ian E. Silverberg, Hardy Law Group, Reno, NV, for the appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Robert F. Friedman, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Dallas, TX, Michael T. Garone, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Portland, OR, for the appellee.