Filed: Nov. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 07, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS ACTION Re: Dkt. No. 10 VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . Nick Miletak entered into an arbitration agreement with Compass Airlines upon employment with Compass. That agreement covers the claims he has brought in this lawsuit. The arbitration agreement includes a waiver of class actions, collective actions, and representative actions. See Dkt. No. 12 at 11, 20-21. This clause is illegal under Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS ACTION Re: Dkt. No. 10 VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . Nick Miletak entered into an arbitration agreement with Compass Airlines upon employment with Compass. That agreement covers the claims he has brought in this lawsuit. The arbitration agreement includes a waiver of class actions, collective actions, and representative actions. See Dkt. No. 12 at 11, 20-21. This clause is illegal under Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d ..
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS ACTION
Re: Dkt. No. 10
VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.
Nick Miletak entered into an arbitration agreement with Compass Airlines upon employment with Compass. That agreement covers the claims he has brought in this lawsuit.
The arbitration agreement includes a waiver of class actions, collective actions, and representative actions. See Dkt. No. 12 at 11, 20-21. This clause is illegal under Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975, 983 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. granted, 137 S.Ct. 809 (2017). But because the term is invalid under a general contract defense that does not target arbitration, it does not operate to invalidate the entire arbitration provision. Id. at 985.
The remaining aspects of the arbitration agreement between Miletak and Compass are not unconscionable, and thus enforceable. Though "[o]rdinary contracts of adhesion . . . contain a degree of procedural unconscionability," the doctrine of unconscionability requires both a finding of procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability. Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc., 62 Cal.4th 1237, 1244 (2016). The contract here does not include any substantively unconscionable provisions.
The motion to compel arbitration is therefore granted and the case is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
