Basulto v. Hialeah Automotive, Case No. SC09-2358 (Fla. March 20, 2014) (reversing intermediate appellate court’s ruling compelling arbitration on monetary relief claims; intermediate court failed to limit its review to whether a valid arbitration agreement existed; no valid agreement due to substantive and procedural unconscionability);
Crawford Professional Drugs, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., Case No. 12-60922 (5th Cir. April 4, 2014) (affirming order compelling arbitration, notwithstanding argument by non-signatories that they were not subject to the arbitration clause; state law may allow an arbitration contract to be enforced by or against nonparties to the contract through state-contract-law theories, including equitable estoppel);
Sanchez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC, Case No. B244772 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2014) (reversing order denying motion to compel arbitration; arbitration agreement was not illusory, nor unenforceable for procedural unconscionability merely because it was an adhesion contract; arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable in that it had bi-lateral application, it did not overly limit discovery, and arbitration rules and procedures were not unfair);
Caplin Enterprises, Inc. v. Arrington, Case No. 2011-CT-01332-SCT (Miss. May 8, 2014) (reversing intermediate appellate court’s ruling that certain arbitration agreements were enforceable; all agreements were contracts of adhesion and so one-sided in their terms as to meet the standard for substantive unconscionability);
Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc., Case No. A136675 (Cal. Ct. App. May 15, 2014) (reversing denial of petition to compel arbitration based on trial court’s finding of unconscionability; trial court lacked authority to rule on enforceability of the arbitration agreement where the parties delegated such authority to the arbitrator).
This post written by Michael Wolgin.
See our disclaimer.