Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Gatton v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 22, 2007No. Nos. A112082, A112084Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

JONES, P. J., Concurring and Dissenting.

Under compulsion of Discover Bank v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 148 [30 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 113 P.3d 1100] {Discover Bank), I concur in my colleagues’ conclusion that the arbitration clauses before us are substantively unconscionable because of the prohibition in the mandatory arbitration provision against the pursuit of any remedy by a plaintiff as a representative of other potential claimants or class of claimants. But I cannot agree that the contracts are also procedurally unconscionable. In my view, plaintiffs do not show, on the record before us, *589…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Discover Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1981
  4. A & M PRODUCE CO. v. FMC Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1982
  5. Madden v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976

16 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