Legal Opinion
O'HARE v. Municipal Resource Consultants
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 21, 2003No. B153165PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
VOGEL (C. S.) P. J.
Introduction
This appeal involves interpretation of an arbitration provision contained in an employment contract between appellant Municipal Resource Consultants (MRC) and respondent Nicholas O’Hare (O’Hare). After MRC fired O’Hare, O’Hare filed a lawsuit. MRC moved to compel arbitration. The trial court refused to enforce the arbitration provision, finding it did not meet the criteria established by case law. MRC appeals. We find the arbitration provision is both substantively and procedurally unconscionable and therefore affirm the trial court’s decision.
Factual and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2003
- Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1997
- Kinney v. United Healthcare Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1999
- Mercuro v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Connie A. Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc. The American Arbitration AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Jacquelin Davis v. O'Melveny & Myers, a California Limited Liability CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Fitz v. NCR Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2004
- Serafin v. Balco Properties Ltd., LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.