Trivedi v. Curexo Technology

























Filed 9/28/10 Trivedi v. Curexo Technology CA1/4















>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

>



California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.





IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION
FOUR




>

RAMESH C. TRIVEDI, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CUREXO TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant.

A127283 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG09459748)

I.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant
Curexo Technology Corporation (Curexo) appeals from the denial of its motion to compel arbitration of
employment-related claims brought by Curexo's former employee, respondent
Ramesh C. Trivedi (Trivedi). Curexo
contends the trial court erred in finding that the arbitration clause contained
in the parties' employment agreement was both procedurally and substantively
unconscionable. Alternatively, Curexo
argues that if the arbitration clause was properly found unconscionable, the trial court abused its discretion in
refusing to sever the offending provisions of the arbitration clause and to
enforce the remainder. We affirm.

II.

PROCEDURAL AND
FACTUAL BACKGROUNDS

On
June 25, 2009, Trivedi
filed a complaint against Curexo and others asserting 10 separate causes of
action. All causes of action arise out
of his termination as president and chief executive officer (CEO) of Curexo on October 31, 2008. The causes of action included one alleging
age discrimination in violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), race
and color discrimination in violation of FEHA, national origin discrimination
in violation of FEHA, and unlawful
business practices, within the meaning of Business and Professions Code
section 17200. In addition, the
complaint asserted claims for breach of the parties' employment contract, bad
faith, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and three causes of action
for employment discharge in violation of California
public policy. As to damages, Trivedi
sought compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory relief, and attorney
fees.

Accompanying
the complaint was a copy of the parties' employment agreement. Paragraph 12 of the agreement was an
arbitration clause under which the parties agreed, among other matters as
discussed below, to resolve â€