Martinez v. Master Protection Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding an arbitration agreement with a six-month limitation period substantively unconscionable because the shortened period is “insufficient to protect its employees’ right to vindicate their statutory rights”
• finding employment contract adhesive where arbitration agreement was presented as a specific “condition of employ- ment”
• rejecting provision because 21 “[t]he mere inclusion of the costs provision in the arbitration agreement produces an unacceptable 22 chilling effect”
• noting under California’s analogous state arbitration law that its equivalent provision “does not permit the trial court to choose an alternative forum where the chosen forum refuses to hear the case”
• finding an arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable because it was a prerequisite of employment and the employee did not have an \opportunity to negotiate or refuse to sign the arbitration agreement\
• finding an agreement procedurally unconscionable 28 because it was a prerequisite of employment and the employee did not have an “opportunity to 1 negotiate or refuse to sign the arbitration agreement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).