Klink v. ABC Phones of N.C., Inc.

7 Citing cases

  1. Vazquez v. Tommy Bahama R&R Holdings, Inc.

    3:22-cv-01881-JES-KSC (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2023)

    When an arbitration agreement falls within the FAA's purview, it is subject to federal substantive law for questions of contract interpretation and state law for questions concerning whether the parties agreed to arbitrate. See, e.g., Klink v. ABC Phones of N.C., Inc., No. 20-cv-06276-EMC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158042, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2021) (citing First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 1924 (1995)). In analyzing whether an arbitration agreement is valid, “generally applicable [state] contract defenses, such as fraud . . . may be applied to invalidate arbitration agreements without contravening [9 U.S.C. § 2].” Doctor's Assocs. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687, 116 S.Ct. 1652, 1656 (1996).

  2. Maag v. Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc.

    2:23-cv-1039 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 28, 2023)

    However, courts have uniformly applied Section 4 when a defendant raises arbitrability as a defense. See, e.g., P.J. Cheese, 861 F.3d at 1346; Klink v. ABC Phones of N.C., Inc., No. 20-CV-06276-EMC, 2021 WL 3709167, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2021).

  3. Hale v. Brinker Int'l

    21-cv-09978-VC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2023)

    On this record, it is more likely than not that Brewer signed the arbitration agreement. See Klink v. ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc., 2021 WL 3709167, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2021); cf. Federal Election Commission v. Toledano, 317 F.3d 939, 950 (9th Cir. 2002).

  4. Schnellecke Logistics U.S. LLC v. Lucid U.S. Inc.

    688 F. Supp. 3d 914 (D. Ariz. 2023)

    Procedural unconscionability focuses on "oppression or surprise that results from unequal bargaining power" while substantive unconscionability deals more with "overly harsh or one-sided results." Klink v. ABC Phones of N.C., No. 20-cv-06276-EMC, 2021 WL 3709167, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2021). 1. Procedural Unconscionability

  5. Hale v. Club Demonstration Servs.

    3:21-cv-00257-MMD-CSD (D. Nev. Jul. 6, 2022)

    As further explained below, because the Court cannot determine a contract exists between the parties as a matter of law given the current record before the Court, see Klink v. ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc., Case No. 20-CV-06276-EMC, 2021 WL 3709167, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2021), and the Court finds Hale timely requested a jury trial, see id. at *7 (noting a trend amongst district courts requiring “a specific demand for a jury trial on the issue of arbitration before or at the time of opposing a motion to compel arbitration”), the Court will set this case for a summary jury trial under 9 U.S.C. § 4 on the issue of whether Hale entered into an arbitration agreement with Defendants.

  6. MacClelland v. Cellco P'ship

    609 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2022)   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting virtually identical argument that "the unconscionability analysis must be limited to the twenty-seven Plaintiffs in this case without regard to the other 2,685 customers"

    "When evaluating procedural unconscionability, courts focus on oppression or surprise that results from unequal bargaining power; while evaluating substantive unconscionability, courts are more concerned with overly harsh or one-sided results." Klink v. ABC Phones of North Carolina , No. 20-cv-06276-EMC, 2021 WL 3709167, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2021) (citing Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno , 57 Cal. 4th 1109, 1145, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 269, 311 P.3d 184 (2013) ). If the Court determines that any contractual provisions are unconscionable, the Court must then decide whether the unconscionable provisions are severable from the rest of the contract.

  7. Waltrip v. Pilot Travel Ctrs.

    Civ. 21-642 GBW/KRS (D.N.M. Jun. 17, 2022)   Cited 5 times

    See, e.g., Burch v. P.J. Cheese, Inc., 861 F.3d 1338, 1348-49 (11th Cir. 2017); Klink v. ABC Phones of N.C., Inc., Case No. 20-cv-06276-EMC, 2021 WL 3709167, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2021) (following Burch); Mayorga v. Ronaldo, 491 F.Supp.3d 840, 857 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2020) (same). One minority rule, by contrast, reads the statute to dictate only when the party opposing arbitration must request a jury trial and so holds that a general request for a jury trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) is a request for a jury trial whether an agreement to arbitrate exists.