Reliable Contracting Co. v. Maryland Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Authority

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that if “all employment-related claims” are 19 covered, an “illustrative list of claims subject to the agreement is just that”
• explaining that the failure to attach the AAA rules does little to 4 affect the unconscionability analysis where the “challenge to the enforcement of the 5 agreement has nothing to do with the AAA rules”
• finding minimal procedural unconscionability where the arbitration agreement was a contract of adhesion but there was no surprise or duress toward plaintiff
• rejecting unconscionability challenge to preliminary relief carve-out that permitted either party to seek relief in court
• “In this case, we are once again asked to determine the enforceability of an arbitration agreement under the law of unconscionability.”
• “[C]ourts will more closely 17 scrutinize the substantive unconscionability of terms that were . . . incorporate[ed] . . . 18 rather than . . . attach[ed] . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).