California Supreme Court Watch

#22-141 Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., S273802. (B309408; 75 Cal.App.5th 365; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 20STCV25987.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. This case includes the following issues: Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that a provision of an arbitration agreement allowing for recovery of interim attorney’s fees after a successful motion to compel arbitration, was so substantively unconscionable that it rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable?

Petition for review granted: 6/01/2022

Case fully briefed: 2/02/2023

Cause argued and submitted: 5/08/2024

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 7/15/2024

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 478.)

“Defendant was sued by a former employee and unsuccessfully moved to compel arbitration. The trial court and the Court of Appeal concluded the arbitration agreement contained unconscionable provisions and declined to enforce it. We too conclude that certain provisions are substantively unconscionable. The next question revolves around remedy. Should the courts have refused to enforce the agreement, or could they have severed the unconscionable provisions and enforced the rest? We conclude the matter must be remanded for further consideration of this question in light of the conclusions and the analysis set out here. We also conclude the Court of Appeal’s decision did not violate the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; FAA).”

Justice Corrigan authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans concurred.