Szetela

Szetela v. Discover Bank

Caution
118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 862·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4007·2002 Daily Journal DAR 4419·97 Cal. App. 4th 1094·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3517
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 22, 2002G029323California2,653 words

Opinion

Opinion

Moore, J.

In this putative class action, plaintiff John Szetela challenges an order granting Discover Bank’s (Discover) motion to compel arbitration. Szetela argues the arbitration agreement, to the extent it prohibits class treatment of small individual claims, is unconscionable and unenforceable. We agree and therefore issue a writ of mandate directing the trial court to strike the portion of the arbitration clause prohibiting class or representative actions.

I

Facts and Procedural Background

Szetela opened a Discover credit card account in July 1993. The terms of his account were governed by a Cardmember Agreement. In July 1999, Discover sent Szetela a notice inserted inside his billing statement that purported to amend the terms of the Cardmember Agreement to include an arbitration clause.

In relevant part, the amendment states: “Arbitration. We Are Adding a New Section to Read as Follows: [ft| Arbitration of Disputes. In the event of any past, present or future claim or dispute (whether based upon contract, tort, statute, common law or equity) between you and us arising from or relating to your Account, any prior account you have had with us, your application, the…

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.