Arbitration As An “Inferior Forum.”

In a retail sales contract, the plaintiff signed a stack of papers and never saw the arbitration clause. Plaintiff individually and as a class representative, brought an action against the automobile dealership for violating the Consumer Legal Remedies Act [CLRA; Civil Code §1750 et seq.], the Automobile Sales Finance Act [Civil Code §2981 and for Unfair Business Practices [Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq.] The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court affirmed, stating the dealership “designed its arbitration clause to impose arbitration not simply as an alternative to litigation, but as an inferior forum that would give it an advantage over its buyers. Accordingly, the trial court acted within its discretion by implicitly concluding the arbitration clause was so permeated by “unconscionability that the interests of justice would not be furthered by severing the unconscionable elements from that clause and enforcing the remainder.” Goodridge v. KDF Automotive Group  (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 1; September 13, 2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 325.