Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided August 3, 2015No. S199119Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CHIN, J.,

Concurring and Dissenting. — I agree with the majority that, under the high court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333 [179 L.Ed.2d 742, 131 S.Ct. 1740] (Concepcion), the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) requires enforcement of the class arbitration waiver in the contract between plaintiff Gil Sanchez and defendant Valencia Holding Company, LLC (Valencia). I also agree with the majority that Sanchez has failed to carry his burden of establishing that the arbitration agreement in that contract is unconscionable. However, as explained…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass'n v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
  4. Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Gentry v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API