Jacqueline McFaddin v. E.A. Renfroe & Co.

Ninth Circuit

Jacqueline McFaddin v. E.A. Renfroe & Co.

699 F. App'x 632

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 17, 2017

Docket15-55886, 15-56404

StatusUnpublished

This text of 699 F. App'x 632 (Jacqueline McFaddin v. E.A. Renfroe & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jacqueline McFaddin v. E.A. Renfroe & Co., 699 F. App'x 632 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding

California law governs the determination of whether the parties’ arbitration agreement is unconscionable. Under California law, “the strong preference is to sever unless the agreement is permeated by unconscionability.” Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P., 203 Cal. App. 4th 771, 802, 137 Cal. Rptr.3d 773 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co., 846 F.3d 1251, 1272 (9th Cir. 2017). We agree with the district court that the choice of forum provision, the prevailing party provision, and the cost provision are unconscionable. Renfroe stipulated it would not enforce the choice of forum provision, and the prevailing party and cost provisions are severable. See Fittante v. Palm Springs Motors, Inc., 105 Cal. App. 4th 708, 727, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 659 (2003). Hence, we vacate its ruling that the entirety of the arbitration agreement is unenforceable.

The district court did not address whether the arbitration agreement’s waiver of class action claims is enforceable and applies to McFaddin’s California’s Private Attorneys General Act claim. The’ district court shall address this issue before reconsidering whether the agreement remains enforceable.

Appellant’s motion for judicial notice (dkt. 55) is denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding

California law governs the determination of whether the parties’ arbitration agreement is unconscionable. Under California law, “the strong preference is to sever unless the agreement is permeated by unconscionability.” Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P., 203 Cal. App. 4th 771, 802, 137 Cal. Rptr.3d 773 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co., 846 F.3d 1251, 1272 (9th Cir. 2017). We agree with the district court that the choice of forum provision, the prevailing party provision, and the cost provision are unconscionable. Renfroe stipulated it would not enforce the choice of forum provision, and the prevailing party and cost provisions are severable. See Fittante v. Palm Springs Motors, Inc., 105 Cal. App. 4th 708, 727, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 659 (2003). Hence, we vacate its ruling that the entirety of the arbitration agreement is unenforceable.

The district court did not address whether the arbitration agreement’s waiver of class action claims is enforceable and applies to McFaddin’s California’s Private Attorneys General Act claim. The’ district court shall address this issue before reconsidering whether the agreement remains enforceable.

Appellant’s motion for judicial notice (dkt. 55) is denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

699 F. App'x 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacqueline-mcfaddin-v-ea-renfroe-co-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack