Bolter

Bolter v. Superior Court

Good Law
104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 888·87 Cal. App. 4th 900
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 30, 2001G027378California3,970 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Leary, J.

Franchise owners, Florence Bolter (doing business as Bolt-er’s Chem-Dry), Sandra Valdez (doing business as Canyon Chem-Dry), and Stephen R. Knight (doing business as Knight’s Chem-Dry) filed the underlying writ petition challenging the court’s ruling their breach of contract action against Harris Research, Inc., must be arbitrated in Utah. The franchisees acknowledge their franchise agreements mandate that all disputes be arbitrated in Utah, but claim the provision is unconscionable and violates Business and Professions Code section 20040.5. Finding their first contention has merit, we grant the writ relief requested.

I

Harris is the franchisor of a carpet cleaning operation known as “Chem-Dry” businesses. In the early 1980’s, petitioners first purchased their Chem-Dry franchises, operating their small businesses in Orange County. Over the years, when their franchise agreements lapsed, petitioners executed renewals and sometimes new franchise agreements.

In April 1998, petitioners filed a complaint seeking damages and declaratory relief, alleging Harris breached the franchise contracts and the covenants of good faith and fair dealing. Petitioners claimed Harris…

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.