20. Procedural & Substantive Unconscionability of Arbitration Agreements; California Homeowners Bill of Rights; Class Action “Fairness” Act; Reversing Award of Attorney fees; Litigation Privilege

Brian and Shant discuss the following:

OTO v. Kho: An arbitration agreement ruled void and unenforceable due to unconscionability.

 

Lopez v. Bartlett Care Center: A wrongful death matter that confronts the issue of agency authority and substantive unconscionability.  The Court held that an arbitration agreement signed by a daughter on behalf of her mother was procedurally unconscionable because the mother was not present when the daughter signed the agreement where the care center asserted the contrary.  Moreover, the Court held the agreement substantively unconscionable because the provisions in the agreement were substantially one-sided.

 

Bustos v. Wells Fargo: A close look at the provisions of the California Homeowners Bill of Rights (CABOR) and what remedies it provides.  The Court held that the bank was in violation of the CABOR and in response granted injunctive relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in addition to $4,200.00 in attorneys fees.  Wells Fargo argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief because the matter was not finalized based upon the grant of the TRO and therefore not a prevailing party.  However, the Court disagreed and found that a TRO is a Preliminary Injunction and therefore Plaintiff is in fact a prevailing party.

 

Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott: A case dealing with an employment class action and the implications of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) for the purposes of removal and remand. 

 

Mancini Associates v. Schwetz: A look at an award of attorney fees arising from the breach of an agreement. 

 

Davis v. Ross: A dispute over a disabled parking spot leads a woman to a felony vandalism conviction.  She then sues the victim of her vandalism and loses because of the principle of Litigation Privilege after a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  She argued the concept of spoliation of the evidence and the Court ruled that the argument only applies to non-communicative conduct and is also subject to the Litigation Privilege.