Arbitrator's Discretion To Limit Discovery Did Not Amount To Substantive Unconscionability.
Finding "some procedural unconscionability", but not substantive unconscionability, the Court of Appeal reversed Judge Michael L. Stern's order denying defendants' motion to compel arbitration. Spaulding v. PJCA-2, LP et al., B285996 (2/7 2/11/19) (Segal, Zelon, Feuer) (unpublished). The Court held that the arbitration agreement, which gave discretion to the arbitrator to limit discovery according to the needs of the case, did not create substantive unconscionability. And since both procedural and substantive unconscionability must be present to hold the arbitration agreement unenforceable, the agreement was enforceable.
COMMENT: The employee alleged that he was compelled to sign the arbitration agreement if he wanted to continue to work. He scribbled his name illegibly, and wrote "UD", intending to mean "under duress." "Some procedural unconscionability"? What does that mean? A tittle, a smidgeon, a whit, a lot? The Court finessed analytical precision by finding an absence of substantive unconscionability.
Comments