On July 15, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a new ruling further defining the contours of California law regarding the interpretation and enforcement of arbitration agreements. In Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., the Court emphasized that there is no bright line, quantitative rule governing when a court may sever unconscionable terms, as opposed to when it must void the entire contract.(more…)
California Supreme Court
California Supreme Court Weighs in on the Unconscionability Defense to Arbitration Agreements in light of the Arbitration-favorable US Supreme Court decision in AT&T v. Concepcion.
In Sonic-Calabasas v. Moreno (Sonic II), the California Supreme Court recently clarified the scope of the state law doctrine of unconscionability as applied to arbitration agreements in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (U.S. 2011). Sonic II is the Court’s first attempt at reconciling California law with Concepcion, which clarified the limitations that the Federal Arbitration Act imposes on a state’s capacity to enforce its rules of unconscionability on parties to arbitration agreements.[1] Sonic II is the first of four cases that the California high court is scheduled to consider this year that will decide how California courts will navigate the new legal framework for arbitration agreements created by Concepcion.(more…)