In Picardi v. District Court, ___ P.3d ___, 2011 WL 1205284 (Nev. Mar. 31, 2011), the Nevada Supreme Court struck down a no-class-action arbitration clause as unconscionable under Nevada law:
Nevada public policy favors allowing consumer class action proceedings when the class members present common legal or factual questions but their individual claims may be too small to be economically litigated on an individual basis. We conclude that a clause in a contract that prohibits a consumer from pursuing claims through a class action, whether in court or through arbitration, violates Nevada public policy. Because the class action waiver provision in this matter precludes any form of class action relief, it is contrary to public policy and is therefore unenforceable. Here, because the terms of the arbitration agreement provide that it is void if the class action waiver is found unenforceable, there is no basis on which to compel arbitration. Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion in compelling arbitration, and writ relief is warranted.
Slip op. at 2 (footnote omitted).
The opinion cites two California cases, Szetela v. Discover Bank, 97 Cal.App.4th 1094 (2002) and Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports LLC, 187 Cal.App.4th 601 (2010), but does not cite our leading case, Discover Bank v. Superior Court (Boehr), 36 Cal.4th 148 (2005).