Another Arbitration Provision Found Unconscionable.

Defendants brought a petition to compel arbitration based on the following provision in their written agreement with plaintiffs: “If a dispute arises between Home Defender Center and Client regarding Home Defender Center’s actions under this agreement and Client files suit in any court other than small claims court, Home Defender Center will have the right to stay that suit by timely electing to arbitrate the dispute under the Business and Professions Code, in which event Client must submit the matter to such arbitration. The parties agree to bring any such action or proceeding in a state or federal court of competent jurisdiction in Orange County, California, and that jurisdiction and venue are proper in Orange County.” The trial court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  On appeal, the court began its opinion by stating: “In this appeal we are presented with the recurring issue of the reach of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. ___, [131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742], (Concepcion) as it impacts unconscionability as a state law defense to arbitration provisions,” and concluded “the arbitration provision here was unconscionable principally because it only applied to plaintiffs.”  (Sabia v. Orange County Metro Realty, Inc. (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 8; June 18, 2014)227 Cal.App.4th 11, [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 485].)