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).
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.
Rather, since Concepcion, the court has found the FAA applied in a construction defect dispute and proceeded to analyze whether the arbitration clause was unconscionable under California law, all without reference to Conception." (Flores, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 919; see also Sparks v. Vista Del Mar Child & Family Services (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1519 ["Concepcion did not eliminate state law unconscionability as a defense to the enforcement of arbitration agreements subject to the Federal Arbitration Act"]; see also Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 587, 595 [rejecting an argument similar to the one Empire makes here and noting "the impact of Concepcion is before the California Supreme Court in [a] car purchase agreement arbitration provision case, Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. . . . , S199119"]; Flores, at p. 912 ["the defense of unconscionability to terms other than class arbitration waivers survives Concepcion"].) V.