Quinoz v. Empire Today
German Quinonez filed a putative class action against Empire Today, LLC (Empire), a national flooring and window treatment business, alleging various Labor Code violations. Empire moved to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration pursuant to a form subcontractor agreement Quinonez signed. The trial court denied the motion. Among other things, the court concluded the arbitration provision in the agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
Empire appeals. It contends: (1) the Illinois choice of law provision is enforceable; (2) it has standing to enforce the arbitration provision; (3) the arbitration provision is enforceable under Illinois and California law, particularly in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) ___ U.S. ___ [131 S.Ct. 1740] (Concepcion); (4) the court erred by refusing to sever the allegedly unconscionable provisions from the remainder of the agreement; and (5) the court erroneously concluded Empire failed to prove the agreement was “the actual agreement.â€
We issued a notice pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.276 informing counsel for Empire that we were considering imposing sanctions on our own motion on the grounds that the appeal is frivolous and that counsel failed to comply with its ethical duty to call our attention to law unfavorable to Empire’s position, specifically, Samaniego v. Empire Today, LLC (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1138 (Samaniego). Counsel for Empire responded to the notice. We decline to impose sanctions on our own motion. Court Affirm.
Comments on Quinoz v. Empire Today