Sanchez

Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.

Good Law
190 Cal. Rptr. 3d 812·2015 Cal. LEXIS 5292·61 Cal. 4th 899·353 P.3d 741
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 3, 2015S199119California36,574 words

Opinion

Opinion

Liu, J.

Filed 8/3/

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

GIL SANCHEZ, )

) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S199119 v. ) ) Ct.App. 2/1 B228027

VALENCIA HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, )

) Los Angeles County Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. BC433634 ____________________________________)

The automobile sales contract in the present case has an arbitration agreement that provides, among other things, that arbitral awards of $0 or over $100,000 as well as grants but not denials of injunctive relief may be appealed to a panel of arbitrators. The arbitration agreement also has provisions that require the party appealing the award to front the costs of the appeal, preserve the right of the parties to go to small claims court and to pursue self-help remedies, and waive the right to class action litigation or arbitration. The agreement further provides that if the class waiver is deemed unenforceable, then the entire arbitration agreement shall be unenforceable. In this dispute over the sale of a car, plaintiff Gil Sanchez filed a class action lawsuit…

Lead Opinion

Liu, J.

The automobile sales contract in the present case has an arbitration agreement that provides, among other things, that arbitral awards of $0 or over $100,000 as well as grants but not denials of injunctive relief may be appealed to a panel of arbitrators. The arbitration agreement also has provisions that require the party appealing the award to front the costs of the appeal, preserve the right of the parties to go to small claims court and to pursue self-help remedies, and waive the right to class action litigation or arbitration. The agreement further provides that if the class waiver is deemed unenforceable, then the entire arbitration agreement shall be unenforceable.

In this dispute over the sale of a car, plaintiff Gil Sanchez filed a class action lawsuit against defendant Valencia Holding Company, LLC (Valencia), and Valencia moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, finding the class waiver and, in turn, the entire arbitration agreement unenforceable. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court held in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333 [ 179 L.Ed.2d 742 , 131 S.Ct. 1740 ] (Concepcion) that the Federal Arbitration Act…

Concurrence in Part

Chin, J.

Concurring and Dissenting. — I agree with the majority that, under the high court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333 [ 179 L.Ed.2d 742 , 131 S.Ct. 1740 ] (Concepcion), the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) ( 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) requires enforcement of the class arbitration waiver in the contract between plaintiff Gil Sanchez and defendant Valencia Holding Company, LLC (Valencia). I also agree with the majority that Sanchez has failed to carry his burden of establishing that the arbitration agreement in that contract is unconscionable. However, as explained below, *925 my analysis of these issues differs from the majority’s in several respects, and I do not endorse all of the majority’s reasoning. Therefore, I concur only in the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

On August 8, 2008, Sanchez went to Valencia’s Mercedes-Benz dealership to shop for a certified preowned car. In response to his inquiry, a sales representative showed him a 2006 Mercedes-Benz S500V with an advertised price of approximately $48,000. After negotiations regarding various terms of the purchase, Sanchez signed a contract entitled “RETAIL INSTALLMENT SALE CONTRACT — SIMPLE…

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.