David Tompkins v. 23andme, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding valid arbitration agreements that did not impose unaffordable fees that would thwart a party’s ability to arbitrate
• finding, under California law, that bilateral intellectual property carveout was not unconscionable
• collecting cases and recognizing “plaintiffs have not identified any case where a state appellate court held that a bilateral clause awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing party was unconscionable, whether in an arbitration or nonarbitration context.”
• “The party asserting that a 27 contractual provision is unconscionable bears the burden of proof.”
• one-sided contract to provide extra margin of safety for one 24 party based on legitimate business needs not necessarily unconscionable
• considering whether a provision 1 some substantive unconscionability” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named David Tompkins v. 23andme, Inc.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• David Tompkins v. 23andme, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2016-10-13