Summary of March 25, 2015 conference report for civil cases

The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, March 25, 2015. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal.

Review Granted

Hernandez v. W.R. Thomas, Inc., S224451—Review Granted and Held—March 25, 2015

The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holdings Co., LLC, S199119, which presents the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. 321, 131 S.Ct. 1740, preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?

In Hernandez, plaintiffs sued defendant Direct Auto Plaza alleging breach of a vehicle purchase agreement. Defendant petitioned to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision in the parties’ agreement. Plaintiffs objected, contending the arbitration provision was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The court rejected plaintiffs’ contentions and ordered the matter to arbitration.

The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, affirmed the order in an unpublished decision. First, the court concluded that there was only a low level of procedural unconscionability concerning the parties’ transaction. Although the industry-drafted purchase agreement was a contract of adhesion and did not clearly disclose the arbitration provision, the court concluded plaintiffs were notified of the arbitration provision and given ample time to review the entire agreement. Second, the court concluded that the terms of the agreement were not substantively unconscionable, reasoning that the provision pertaining to the finality of the arbitrator’s decision was not so unreasonably harsh as to preclude enforcement of the parties’ agreement.

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

None.

Depublished

None.