Trivedi

Trivedi v. CUREXO TECHNOLOGY CORP.

Caution
116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 804·189 Cal. App. 4th 387·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1802
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 2010A127283California3,890 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ruvolo, J.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Curexo Technology Corporation (Curexo) appeals from the denial of its motion to compel arbitration of employment-related claims brought by Curexo’s former employee, respondent Ramesh C. Trivedi (Trivedi). Curexo contends the trial court erred in finding that the arbitration clause contained in the parties’ employment agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Alternatively, Curexo argues that if the arbitration clause was properly found unconscionable, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to sever the offending provisions of the arbitration clause and to enforce the remainder. We affirm.

n.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUNDS

On June 25, 2009, Trivedi filed a complaint against Curexo and others asserting 10 separate causes of action. All causes of action arise out of his termination as president and chief executive officer (CEO) of Curexo on October 31, 2008. The causes of action included one alleging age discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), race and color discrimination in violation of FEFLA, national origin discrimination in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.