Duffens

Duffens v. Valenti

Good Law
161 Cal. App. 4th 434·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 417·74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 311
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 27, 2008D050450California7,381 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

Plaintiffs and respondents Elaine M. Duffens, Sandra Mamell, and Sandy Shaulis (collectively respondents) brought an action against Irene C. Valenti, Valenti International Limited, LLC, and Valenti International Foundation, Inc. (collectively Valenti), for general, special, and treble damages based on allegations of fraud and statutory violations of Civil Code section 1694 et seq. in the individual matchmaking consulting agreements sold to them by Valenti. Section 1694 et seq., referred to here as the dating service statutes, prescribe certain standards and language that must be included in dating service contracts. Valenti brought a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the arbitration clause within the matchmaking consulting agreement was severable and enforceable, regardless of any potential defenses to the underlying contract liability. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1281, 1281.2.) The superior court denied the motion, concluding the arbitration clause was unenforceable because it was contained within an agreement that lacked essential language required by the statutory scheme, and the agreement was entered into under misleading circumstances, also a violation of statute.…

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.