Peng

DISCUSSION

I. The Statutory Scheme and the Standards of Review

―Title 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure . . . represents a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating private arbitration in this state.[3] (§ 1280 et seq.)‖4 (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9 (Moncharsh).) ―The fundamental premise of the scheme is that ‗[a] written agreement to submit [either a present or a future controversy]

1 On June 13, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted review in Mayers v. Volt Management Corp., No. S200709, pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Sanchez (Gil) v. Valencia Holding Company, No. S199119 (review granted Mar. 21, 2012) (Sanchez). In Sanchez, the Supreme Court stated that the issue presented is whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2) ―preempt[s] state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?‖ (Supreme Ct. Mins., Mar. 21, 2012.) 2 Defendant also has appealed an order denying its motion to compel arbitration, based on the same arbitration agreement, in Edwards v. First Republic Bank, No. A135505. We denied defendant‘s application to…