In Mission Viejo Emergency Medical Associates v. Beta Healthcare Group, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Jun. 29, 2011; pub. ord. Jul. 27, 2011), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) reversed an order denying a motion to compel arbitration in a non-class-action case.
In doing so, the Court had this to say about Concepcion:
We invited the parties to provide their comments on the recent United States Supreme Court case, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) __ U.S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740] (AT&T). Defendants appear to argue that AT&T essentially preempts all California law relating to unconscionability. We disagree, as the case simply does not go that far. General state law doctrine pertaining to unconscionability is preserved unless it involves a defense that applies “only to arbitration or that derive[s] [its] meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue.” (Id. at p. __ [131 S.Ct. at p.1746].) This simply does not apply here.
Slip op. at 13 n.4.
The case is not a class action, so the opinion does not address arbitration clauses with class action bans, but the language above is nonetheless interesting. Many thanks to Mark Moore of Spiro Moss LLP for bringing it to my attention.
UPDATE: Scott Leviant of The Complex Litigator has a more detailed post on this opinion.