Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. – S214430 Issue Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742], preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable? Procedural History Opinion Below: 201 Cal.App.4th 74; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC433634 Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration.
Recent Featured Posts
- How the Gann Limit Interacts with Cap-and-Trade
- California Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory First Contract Arbitration For Farmworkers
- Some Thoughts on California’s Fiscal Constitution
- Opinion Analysis: Briggs v. Brown (2017) Part I
- Opinion Analysis: S234148 California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland
Cases & Categories
Sign Up for Email Updates
SCOCAblog is a Berkeley Law & Hastings Law Journal publication focused on substantive coverage of the Supreme Court of California. We provide analysis of doctrinal and procedural issues in cases before the court, and news about developments pertaining to the court itself. Our contributors include former justices of the court, academics and practitioners with subject matter expertise, and advocates experienced in appellate practice before the state high court.
Steven M. Duvernay
David Aram Kaiser
William T. Newman
Shane G. Smith
Brandon V. Stracener