Jaramillo

Jaramillo v. JH Real Estate Partners, Inc.

Good Law
111 Cal. App. 4th 394·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1248·2003 Daily Journal DAR 9268·3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 525·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7411
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 15, 2003H024665California4,638 words

Opinion

Opinion

Elia, J.

Defendants JH Real Estate Partners, Inc., JH Management Co., LLC and United Dominion appeal from the denial of their motion to compel arbitration. (Civ. Code, § 1294, subd. (a).) The case involves the enforceability of an arbitration provision contained in a residential lease.

On appeal, defendants assert that the trial court erred by denying their motion because the arbitration provision was not unconscionable and did not lack mutuality. We asked the parties to discuss, in supplemental briefs, the effect of Civil Code sections 1942.1 and 1953 on the issue of unconscionability of the arbitration clause and whether section 1953, subdivision (a)(2) to (a)(4), precluded compelled binding arbitration. After careful consideration of these issues, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.

A. Procedural History

On March 7, 2002, Dino Jaramillo and Kim Jaramillo (the Jaramillos) filed a complaint against JH Real Estate Partners, Inc., JH Management Co., LLC, and United Dominion, later corrected to read United Dominion Realty, L.P. They alleged causes of action for general negligence, intentional tort, premises liability, breach of contract, breach of the implied warranty of…

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.