Bridge Fund Capital Corp. v. Fastbucks Franchise Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enforce an unconscionable arbitration clause in its entirety
• noting that a contract of adhesion is 21 “procedurally unconscionable to at least some degree”
• noting that under California law the burden of proving a contract exists is with the party seeking enforcement
• holding 23 arguments that an arbitration provision “improperly limit[ed] . . . damages” and 24 “shorten[ed] the statute of limitations” were “arguments marshaled against the validity of 25 the arbitration clause alone” that must be decided by a court
• applying California law; finding 6 || arbitration agreement unenforceable where severance of \offending provisions would 7 || have left almost nothing to the arbitration clause\
• considering, under California law, five-paragraph 16 arbitration clause; finding arbitration clause unenforceable where severance of four 17 \offending provisions would have left almost nothing\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).