United States Ninth Circuit

The district court properly denied defendant-employer's motion to compel arbitration in an action asserting claims under California labor law on behalf of the plaintiff and a proposed class of other employees, where: 1) the arbitration policy was procedurally and substantively unconscionable under California contract law and therefore unenforceable; and 2) the state law supporting the unconsionability holding was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act because it applied to contracts generally and did not in practice impact arbitration agreements disproportionately.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/28/2013
• Published 10/28/2013

Judges

• CLIFTON

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel