Crippen

Crippen v. Central Valley RV Outlet, Inc.

Good Law
124 Cal. App. 4th 1159·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 2119·2004 Daily Journal DAR 14731·22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 189·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10928
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 10, 2004F043836California2,303 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiseman, J.

It is now black letter law that a motion to compel arbitration must be denied if the arbitration agreement is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. In this case, we focus on procedural unconscionability. We acknowledge that, in some situations, procedural unconscionability can be established simply by examining the written agreement and the nature of the relationship between the parties without the use of extrinsic evidence. That said, in spite of the moving party’s best efforts, we conclude that he fails to prove that this particular arbitration agreement is procedurally unconscionable.

Most case law interpreting the enforceability of arbitration agreements has developed in the context of employment agreements. By contrast, the dispute in this case involved an allegedly defective motor home and an arbitration agreement contained in the purchase contract for the motor home. Defendant Central Valley RV Outlet, Inc., appeals from an order denying its motion to compel arbitration. Since the record contains no extrinsic evidence of procedural unconscionability, and none is inferable from the agreement itself or the relationship between the dealer and customer,…

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.