Wimsatt v. Beverly Hills Weight Loss Clinics International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the court of appeals has squarely held that “collateral estoppel effect should not have been given the earlier findings because they were made using a different standard of proof than required for the later hearing.”
• stating that the court of appeals has squarely held that “collateral estoppel effect should not have been given the earlier findings because they were made using a different standard of proof than required for the later hearing.”
• rejecting a forum selection clause and related choice of law clause because the foreign forum would not be applying California law
• stating that “the logic of the antiwaiver provision of California’s Franchise Investment Law requires that the burden be on the defendant to show that litigation in the contract forum will not diminish any of the plaintiffs’ rights under California law.”
• acknowledging that its opinion “sound[s] ‘provincial’ ”
• acknowledging California’s inability to apply its franchise law in the contract forum

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).