Recent opinion holds arbitration clause unconscionable: Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc.

In Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Jan. 7, 2013; pub. ord. Feb. 5, 2013), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Five) affirmed the trial court's determination that a no-class-action arbitration clause was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable.  The case involves claims under the Rees-Levering Act, the UCL and the CLRA. 

In its order modifying and publishing the opinion, the Court added the following footnote:

We recognize that, following the original filingof the decision in the present case, the Second District concluded in Flores v. West Covina Auto Group (2013)212 Cal.App.4th 895, that a very similar provision was not substantivelyunconscionable.  We adhere to ouranalysis and conclusion.

Slip op. at 12 n.7.  This blog's post on Flores is here.  Both cases may be destined to become "grant and holds" pending resolution of Iskanian.