Post-Concepcion decisions are in accord. Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 587, 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 224, involved an arbitration provision in a consumer contract of adhesion. Pointing to decisions by both the federal district courts and the California appellate courts, the Natalini court held that Armendariz's bilaterality analysis was a generally applicable doctrine of contract law that was not affected by Concepcion.
Post-Concepcion decisions are in accord. Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 587, 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 224, involved an arbitration provision in a consumer contract of adhesion. Pointing to decisions by both the federal district courts and the California appellate courts, the Natalini court held that Armendariz's bilaterality analysis was a generally applicable doctrine of contract law that was not affected by Concepcion.
Post-Concepcion decisions are in accord. Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 587 , involved an arbitration provision in a consumer contract of adhesion. Pointing to decisions by both the federal district courts and the California appellate courts, the Natalini court held that Armendariz's bilaterality analysis was a generally applicable doctrine of contract law that was not affected by Concepcion. (Concepcion, supra, 563 U.S. at p. ___ ; Truly Nolen of America v.Superior Court (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 487, 506 [finding an adhesive arbitration provision unconscionable because it is overly one-sided does not disfavor arbitration]; see Coneff v. AT&T Corp. (9th Cir. 2012) 673 F.3d 1155, 1161 [quoting Concepcion, supra, 563 U.S. at p. ___ , for the proposition that generally applicable contract defenses such as unconscionability are allowed under the FAA so long as they are not applied in a manner that disfavors arbitration].)
This court affirmed in an appeal filed January 7, 2013, on the basis that the arbitration provision was unconscionable; we did not address the trial court's other grounds for denying appellant's petition. (Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 587 (Natalini I).) The California Supreme Court granted review and, on September 30, 2015, the Court transferred the matter for reconsideration in light of Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 899 (Sanchez).
During the three years that Sanchez has been pending, the high court has granted and held numerous petitions for review of Court of Appeal decisions addressing similar (if not identical) unconscionability challenges to the identical arbitration provision in the same industry-drafted contract.These intermediate courts (including different panels of this court) have reached various different conclusions on the unconscionability issues. These cases include: Gillespie v. Svale Del Grande, Inc., review granted July 9, 2014, S218704; Cheroti v. Harvey & Madding, Inc., review granted June 25, 2014, S218724; Gonzalez v. Metro Nissan of Redlands, review granted November 26, 2013, S214121; Vargas v. SAI Monrovia B, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1269, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 742, review granted August 21, 2013, S212033; Vasquez v. Greene Motors, Inc. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1172, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 778, review granted June 26, 2013, S210439; Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 587, 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 224, review granted May 1, 2013, S209324; Flores v. West Covina Auto Group, LLC (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 895, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 481, review granted April 10, 2013, S208716; Goodridge v. KDF Automotive Group, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 325, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 16, review granted December 19, 2012, S206153; Caron v. Mercedes–Benz Financial Services USA LLC (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 7, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 296, review granted October 24, 2012, S205263. To the extent this court's conclusions and/or reasoning has differed or changed over this time, our views continue to evolve as we have the benefit of additional appellate decisions in this area and the benefit of the California Supreme Court's continuing refinement of our state's unconscionability analysis under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
The Sanchez case also raises the broader question of the impact of the United States Supreme Court's Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preemption decision, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. ___ (Concepcion), on unconscionability analysis under California law. These cases include: Gillespie v. Svale Del Grande, Inc., review granted July 9, 2014, S218704; Cheroti v. Harvey & Madding, Inc., review granted June 25, 2014, S218724; Gonzalez v. Metro Nissan of Redlands, review granted November 26, 2013, S214121; Vargas v. SAI Monrovia B, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1269, review granted August 21, 2013, S212033; Vasquez v. Greene Motors, Inc. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1172, review granted June 26, 2013, S210439; Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 587, review granted May 1, 2013, S209324; Flores v. West Covina Auto Group (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 895, review granted April 10, 2013, S208716; Goodridge v. KDF Automotive Group, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 325, review granted December 19, 2012, S206153; Caron v. Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 7, review granted October 24, 2012, S205263. As reflected by the number of cases pending before the California Supreme Court and the widely divergent views of these courts, the proper evaluation of an unconscionability challenge to FAA arbitration provisions is unsettled.
It is described in other decisions involving car dealers and manufacturers to be approximately 26 inches long. Numerous opinions address the enforceability of the arbitration clause found in form no. 553-CA-ARB. These cases are currently before the California Supreme Court and include: Vargas v. SAI Monrovia B., Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1269, review granted Aug. 21, 2013, No. S212033; Vasquez v. Greene Motors, Inc. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1172, review granted June 26, 2013, No. S210439; Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 587, review granted May 1, 2013, No. S209324; Flores v. West Covina Auto Group, LLC (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 895, review granted Aug. 27, 2014, No. S208716; Goodridge v. KDF Automotive Group, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 325, review granted December 19, 2012, No. S206153. The California Supreme Court has suspended briefing on each of these cases pending a decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 74, review granted March 21, 2012, No. S199119.
ssed whether the arbitration clause contained within the form sale contract is unconscionable and/or whether the class waiver is proper, the California Supreme Court has granted review in these cases. (Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 74 [unconscionable arbitration clause] (Sanchez), review granted Mar. 21, 2012, S199119; Caron v. Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 7 [class action waiver permissible], review granted Oct. 24, 2012, S205263, further action deferred pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2); Goodridge v. KDF Automotive Group, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 325 [unconscionable arbitration clause], review granted Dec. 19, 2012, S206153, further action deferred pursuant to rule 8.512(d)(2); Flores v. West Covina Auto Group (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 895 [arbitration clause not unconscionable; class action waiver permissible], review granted Apr. 10, 2013, S208716, further action deferred pursuant to rule 8.512(d)(2); Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 587 [unconscionable arbitration clause], review granted May 1, 2013, S209324, further action deferred pursuant to rule 8.512(d)(2); Vasquez v. Greene Motors, Inc. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1172 [arbitration clause not unconscionable; class action waiver permissible], review granted June 26, 2013, S210439, further action deferred pursuant to rule 8.512(d)(2); Vargas v. SAI Monrovia B, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1269 [unconscionable arbitration clause], review granted Aug. 21, 2013, S212033, further action deferred pursuant to rule 8.512(d)(2).) All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court.
To date, however, the Supreme Court has not yet rendered its own opinion, and there does not appear to be a remaining published Court of Appeal decision. The cases accepted for review include Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 74, review granted March 21, 2012, S199119; Goodridge v. KDF Automotive Group, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 325, review granted and briefing deferred December 19, 2012, S206153; Flores v. West Covina Auto Group, LLC (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 895, review granted and briefing deferred April 10, 2013, S208716; Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 587, review granted and briefing deferred May 1, 2013, S209324; and Vargas v. SAI Monrovia B, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1269, review granted and briefing deferred August 21, 2013, S212033, in addition to our own decision in Vasquez v. Greene Motors, Inc. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1172, review granted and briefing deferred June 26, 2013, S210439. 1. Legal Background
Apparently many new car dealers in California use a form purchase and sale contract, which includes a form arbitration clause. The question of whether this form arbitration clause is unconscionable or not has produced no fewer than five published appellate opinions so far: Vargas v. SAI Monrovia B, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1269 (unconscionable), review granted, August 21, 2013, S212033; Vasquez v. Greene Motors, Inc. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1172 (not unconscionable), review granted June 26, 2013, S210439; Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 587 (unconscionable), review granted, May 1, 2013, S209324; Flores v. West Covina Auto Group (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 895 (not unconscionable), review granted, April 10, 2013, S208716; Goodridge v. KDF Automotive Group, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 325 (unconscionable), review granted, December 19, 2012, S206153; Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 74 (unconscionable), review granted, March 21, 2012, S199119. As noted, the California Supreme Court has granted review in all these cases; however, it has not yet decided any.