Arbitration, Unconscionability, Severability: Trial Court's Order Denying Petition To Compel Arbitration Is Reversed, Because The Only Unconscionable Provision Was Severable

The Unconscionable Provision Permitted Only The Defendant To Seek Equitable And Injunctive Relief In A Court Of Law.

    In Enyong v. Westlake Services, LLC et al., B275952 (2/5  4/24/17) (Kriegler, Baker, Dunning) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal concluded that an arbitration provision contained only one unconscionable term, which was severable.  Therefore, it reversed the trial court's order denying the petition to compel arbitration.

    The one unconscionable provision permitted only defendant/appellant Westlake to seek equitable and injunctive relief in a court of law.  However, this provision could have been severed, enabling the trial court "to enforce an otherwise valid arbitration agreement as favored by the FAA."

    Relying on Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc., 62 Cal.4th 1237 (2016), the Court further concluded "that the agreement is a contract of adhesion, but it does not involve sharp practices, oppression, or an element of surprise" -- in other words, the procedural unconscionability prong also could not have been satisfied.

    Note:  The trial judge was the Hon. Teresa Sanchez-Gordon.  On April 17, 2017, the Metropolitan News-Enterprise announced that she will be retiring after 20 years on the bench.