Goodridge v. KDF Automotive: Supreme Court Issues Grant-and-Hold Order In Arbitration Agreement Unconscionability Case

In Goodridge v. KDF Automotive Group, Inc. (8/24/12) --- Cal.App.4th --- (discussed here), the Court of Appeal held that an arbitration agreement contained in an auto dealership's purchase contract was unconscionable and unenforceable without regard to any class action waiver provision.

On December 19, the Supreme Court granted review of Goodridge and deferred briefing pending its decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC (11/23/11) 200 Cal.App.4th 11 (discussed here) review granted 3/21/12 (discussed here) (finding arbitration provision procedurally and substantively unconscionable, without regard to class action waiver).  Sanchez raises the following issue: 

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?

Goodridge is Case No. S206153. The Supreme Court's page for it is here.