Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.
California Supreme Court
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
- Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
- Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass'n v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1981
- Gentry v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.