Less than a year ago, the California Supreme Court in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. opined, in the context of employment arbitration agreements, that there is no bright line rule that requires a court to refuse...more
Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s decision finding a delegation clause in an arbitration agreement to be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable and, moreover, that...more
In August 2000, the California Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling that changed the face of employment arbitration agreements going forward. That case, known as Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services,...more
On July 15, 2024, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision that could provide courts in the state with significant discretion to refuse to enforce employment arbitration agreements even if only one term is determined...more
In a recent decision, the California Supreme Court held that courts cannot refuse to enforce arbitration agreements simply by finding that three or more provisions are unconscionable. Rather, courts must use a three-prong...more
On June 8, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the employer’s petition for certiorari in OTO, LLC v. Kho. As background, in 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled in OTO that the arbitration agreement at issue was not...more
OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, 8 Cal. 5th 111, 251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 714 (2019) - Summary: Mandatory arbitration agreement may be unenforceable against employee wage claims if agreement requires employee to forego Labor Commissioner...more
The U.S. Supreme Court just did something that was more than just a bit out of character—it rejected the opportunity to find that California had once again overstepped its bounds by creating judicial rules disfavoring...more
The California Supreme Court recently handed down an intriguing decision which casts doubt on – and in some cases even condemns – some of the most common practices used by employers in both drafting and presenting arbitration...more
California Supreme Court Invalidates Agreement To Arbitrate Wage Disputes - OTO, LLC v. Kho, 2019 WL 4065524 (Cal. S. Ct. 2019) - In the most recent chapter of the ongoing saga regarding the enforceability of...more
“Unconscionability” is alive and well, as last week the California high Court renewed its 30-year running dog fight with the U.S. Supreme Court over the enforceability of arbitration agreements. In One Toyota of Oakland v....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court invalidated an employment arbitration agreement on August 29, 2019. At issue in OTO, LLC v. Kho was an agreement to arbitrate employment claims, including wage claims. Under the...more
On August 29, 2019, the California Supreme Court held in OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, S244630, that a mandatory arbitration agreement may be unenforceable against employee wage claims if it requires the employee to forego the “Berman”...more
The California Supreme Court ruled on Monday, August 18, that an interest rate on a consumer loan in California could be deemed illegally high even if the loan is not subject to the state’s usury law. Consumer loans of...more
On August 13, 2018, the California Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the Ninth Circuit, holding that a loan with a high interest rate can be unconscionable, even if the legislature specifically declined to...more
On August 13, 2018, the California Supreme Court in Eduardo De La Torre, et al. v. CashCall, Inc., held that interest rates on consumer loans of $2,500 or more could be found unconscionable under section 22302 of the...more
Resolving an ambiguity in the California Finance Lender’s Law (CFLL), the California Supreme Court unanimously held that borrowers may use the unconscionability doctrine to challenge the interest rate on consumer loans of...more
On Monday, August 13, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the interest rate on a consumer loan in California can be deemed illegally high, even if the loan was not subject to the state’s usury cap....more
Resolving an ambiguity in the California Finance Lender's Law (CFLL), the California Supreme Court unanimously held that borrowers may use the unconscionability doctrine to challenge the interest rate on consumer loans of...more
California usury law is addressed in multiple places: the California Constitution, statutes, case law, and initiative measures. Due to the patchwork nature of this body of law, differing interpretations and ambiguity are...more
Although the California Finance Lenders Law (the CFLL) does not limit the interest rates that may be charged on loans of $2,500 or more, Section 22302 of the law expressly states that loans made under the CFLL may be held...more
In this case, a former employee of a retail store appealed to the California Supreme Court seeking reversal of an appellate court decision which found that an arbitration agreement in her employment application was not...more
On Monday, March 28, 2016, the California Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Second Appellate District holding that an arbitration agreement in an employment contract is not substantively unconscionable simply because...more
On March 28, 2016, the California Supreme Court handed down a long-awaited opinion in Baltazar v. Forever 21. Baltazar’s most important holding is that an arbitration agreement is not unconscionable merely because it restates...more
On March 28, 2016, the Supreme Court of California issued another ruling on the enforceability of arbitration agreements. In Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (S208345), the court considered the enforceability of an arbitration...more