Legal Opinion
Phillips v. Sprint PCS
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 26, 2012No. A134371PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
POLLAK, J.
In a consumer class action alleging misrepresentation of cellular telephone rates, the trial court in 2006 denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration based upon a finding that the provisions in the underlying customer contracts requiring bilateral arbitration and waiving a class action are unconscionable under California law. Years later, after the United States Supreme Court abrogated the California rule and upheld the validity of class action waivers in consumer contracts (AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. _ [179 L.Ed.2d 742, 131 S.Ct. 1740]…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. CardegnaSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Discover Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
- General Electric Company v. Deutz AgCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- Olson v. CoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
- Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Betancourt v. Prudential Overall SupplyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
- Cortez v. Doty Bros. Equip. Co., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- State v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.