Enforcing Arbitration Agreements In California

AB 1715, if the governor signed it, would probably be repressed under the previous FAA and United States Supreme Court. As noted above, the FAA anticipates all state laws inconsistent with the FAA`s goal of promoting arbitration. In Doctor`s Associates, Inc. Casarotto and Circuit City Stores v. Adams, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state courts do not invalidate arbitration agreements under state laws that apply only to the provisions of arbitration. AB 1715 is certainly a state law that applies only to arbitration agreements (not contracts in general) and therefore is unlikely to survive a legal challenge. Employers considering the implementation of an arbitration program should analyze their history of labour disputes over a period of three to five years to determine whether the benefits of an arbitration obligation outweigh the disadvantages and risks. The Ninth Circuit has recently been active in arbitration. It is interesting to note that several court decisions relate to arbitration agreements used by Circuit City Stores. The scrupulous nature of the content focuses on the terms of the agreement and whether these conditions are so one-sided that they shock consciences. The courts have identified a number of factors that can lead to a lack of scruples on the merits. (see z.B.

Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1064, 1072-1074 [The court found to be unilaterally unreasonable in favour of the employer]; McManus v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 76, 93 [The court found to be an unacceptable legal fee for employees]; Pinedo v. Premium Tobacco Stores, Inc. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 774, 781 [three factors: limitation of employee damage recovery, need for arbitration in Oakland, California, and condition that employees bear all costs, which the agreement was “at least equally unacceptable to those in Armendariz”; Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1542 [Provision relating to loss of work, wages and benefits during the arbitration streamlining process, which the court characterized as an “extreme burden” among several ruthless clauses].) The implementation of a valid arbitration agreement requires two factors to be taken into account.