Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Ninth Circuit· 8/23/2016

David Tompkins v. 23andme, Inc.

Citations

  • 840 F.3d 1016
  • 2016 WL 6072192

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).

Judges: Trott, Ikuta, Watford

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

45 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.