S.K., Mother of K.R.K., K.R.K., Minor Children v. Department of Children and Families

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Conception preempted California’s state-law rule prohibiting the arbitration of claims for broad, public injunctive relief
• concluding that the arbitration provision in question was not procedurally 8 unconscionable because it allowed students obtaining loans to reject arbitration within sixty days 9 of signing the promissory note
• holding that arbitration agreement was 25 not procedurally unconscionable because it was not “buried in fine print . . . but was instead in its 26 own section, clearly labeled, in boldface”
• opining that “[p]laintiffs are free to argue during arbitration that the confidentiality clause is not enforceable”
• concluding the arbitration provision was not procedurally unconscionable because it allowed students obtaining loans to reject arbitration within sixty days of signing the promissory note
• holding arbitration provision not procedurally unconscionable if signatories able 18 to opt out

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).