Court Orders Briefing In Case Considering Whether Obligation to Arbitrate Is Unilateral Or Bilateral

I mentioned not long ago that the California Supreme Court had dismissed Wisdom v. AccentCare, Inc. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 591, review granted 3/28/12 (discussed here), a case in which the Supreme Court was set to decide whether certain language in an arbitration agreement was unilateral (requiring only one side to arbitrate) or bilateral (requiring both sides to arbitrate). The parties in Wisdom settled their case, and the Supreme Court dismissed it.

To replace Wisdom on its docket, the Court has ordered briefing in Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (12/20/12) 212 Cal.App.4th 221, review granted 3/20/13 (discussed here). In Baltazar, the Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order denying arbitration, holding inter alia, that the agreement at issue there was not unconscionable because it imposed a bilateral obligation to arbitrate.

Baltazar is Case No. S208345, and the Supreme Court's web page for it is here.