Ojeda

Ojeda v. Vahi, Inc. CA2/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 16, 2022B313717California3,439 words

Opinion

Opinion

Currey, J.

INTRODUCTION

Vahi, Inc. dba Valley Hi Toyota, Dick Browning, Inc., Todd Stokes, and Mike Mitsch (collectively, the Dealership) appeal from an order denying their motion to compel plaintiff Lawrence Ojeda to arbitrate his employment-related claims against the Dealership. The Dealership contends the trial court erred in determining the arbitration agreements between the parties were unconscionable, and in refusing to sever any provisions the trial court considered unconscionable. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Ojeda worked at the Dealership from approximately 2007 to 2020. He began as a sales associate, and was later promoted to a finance manager. During his employment, Ojeda signed several arbitration agreements. Ojeda executed the first arbitration agreement on July 24, 2008, as part of his new-hire packet. Less than a month later, on August 19, 2008, Ojeda executed a second arbitration agreement included with a handbook acknowledgement. That agreement states that it “is the entire agreement between the Company and [Ojeda] regarding dispute resolution, the length of [Ojeda’s] employment, and the reasons for termination of…

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.