Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. section 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740, preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?Vargas is Supreme Court Case No. S212033, and the Court's web page for it is here. The Court's web page for Sanchez is here.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Vargas v. SAI Monrovia B, Inc.: California Supreme Court Issues Grant-and-Hold of Another Arbitration Decision
In Vargas v. SAI Monrovia B, Inc. (6/4/13) --- Cal.App.4th ---, the Court of Appeal again found the arbitration clause in a standard automobile retail installment sales contract unconscionable and unenforceable. As anticipated, on August 21, 2013, the California Supreme Court granted review and deferred briefing pending its decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2012) 201 Cal.App.4th 74, review granted March 21, 2012 (Case No. S199119), which addresses the identical arbitration clause. Sanchez raises the following issue: