LawMemo       First in Employment Law 

LawMemo's reason for being: We publish Employment Law Memo - summaries of latest court decisions, one-click links to full text, three emails per week.   Try it. 

Home | Free Trial | Products & Prices | Feeds | Caselaw Database | Sample   
EEOC
| NLRB | Nat'l Arbitration Ctr | Supreme Court | Articles | Lawyers
Employment Law BlogArbitration Blog | Employment Law 101    
Employment Law Memo | NLRB Law Memo | Arbitration Law Memo

Quick Jump: 

LawMemo Arbitration Blog 

All Archives    |    All Archives By Topic

 

« No agreement for enhanced judicial review | Main | Nondisclosure voids arbitration award »

Anti-class-action clause was unconscionable
October 21, 2005 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

A franchise agreement contained an agreement to arbitrate disputes, and specifically barred class action arbitrations. The California Court of Appeal now says such a ban on class actions is unconscionable. Not only that, the court ordered that the individual claims be consolidated. Independent Association of Mailbox Center Owners v. Superior Court (Mail Boxes Etc., USA) (California Ct App; decided 09/16/2005; ordered published 10/13/2005).

I thought the opinion was bit cavalier in its unconscionability analysis. Typically this is a fact-specific inquiry. However, the court's reasoning seemed to be that franchisees are similar to employees and consumers, so they sort of automatically qualify for unconscionability protection. Just a bit too patronizing for my taste.


LawMemo.Com

Google
 
Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. It does not include the Caselaw Database.

Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.

  • Employment Law Memo emails designed for lawyers. 
  • Expert summaries of decisions from all federal and state appellate courts. 
  • Direct link to full text. 
  • Click here for free 4-week subscription