2016 | Septiembre 14
An arbitration provision that was provided only in English to a population consisting of one-third Spanish speakers, and that required claimants to bear one-half of arbitration expenses, was unenforceable as unconscionable.
Arbitration agreements generally are enforced unless a court determines that they are procedurally and substantively unconscionable. On September 9, 2016, in Penilla v. Westmont Corp., the California Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying the enforcement of an arbitration agreement that was available only in English (even to non-English speakers), and that contained shortened limitations periods. The arbitration agreement also had several other terms—such as permitting a default judgment against potential claimants who fail to advance one-half of undisclosed arbitral fees—that taken together rendered the arbitration unenforceable.