BREAKING NEWS: Review granted in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.

Today, the California Supreme Court granted review in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., no. S199119.

This is the case in which the Court of Appeal declined to enforce a no-class-action arbitration clause notwithstanding Concepcion.  Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC, 201 Cal.App.4th 74 (2011).  The Court of Appeal reasoned that ordinary state-law unconscionability principles were preserved by Concepcion. 

As I mentioned in this post last Friday and another post this morning, this reading of Concepcion finds support in two recent Ninth Circuit decisions, Kilgore v. KeyBank, N.A., ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2012) and Coneff v. AT&T Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Mar. 16, 2012). 

The docket in Sanchez has not yet been updated to indicate the issues on review. 

UPDATE:  This is the issue on review, as stated on the docket: 

Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740, preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?