Penilla

Penilla v. Westmont Corp.

Good Law
2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 751·207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 473·3 Cal. App. 5th 205
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 9, 2016B262097California6,888 words

Opinion

Opinion

Manella, J.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Westmont Corporation doing business as Wildwood Mobile Home Country Club (Westmont) owns land located in Hacienda Heights, Los Angeles County. David Penilla and 60 other named plaintiffs are primarily low-income mobilehome owners who rent the land. After plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against Westmont and its employees or agents (collectively appellants) alleging contract, tort and statutory causes of action, appellants filed a motion to compel respondents Penilla and 45 other named plaintiffs to arbitrate those claims. The trial court denied the motion to compel, finding the arbitration provision contained in the rental agreements unconscionable and thus unenforceable. We conclude the arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable, as it failed to disclose prohibitively expensive arbitration fees and was neither provided in a Spanish-language copy nor explained to respondents who did not understand written English. We further conclude the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable as it imposed arbitral fees that were unaffordable or would have substantially deterred respondents from asserting their claims. 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.