Edwards v. First Republic Bank
Defendant First Republic Bank (the Bank) appeals from an order denying its motion to compel arbitration of an employment dispute with plaintiff John Edwards. An arbitration agreement may be unenforceable if it is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114 (Armendariz).) The trial court found that the agreement here is substantively unconscionable because the Bank can modify it at any time. As Division One of this Appellate District recently observed in a case presenting the same issues as those raised here (Peng v. First Republic Bank (2013 219 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1473-1474 (Peng)), the trial court’s finding of substantive unconscionability was contrary to our holding in 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1214 (24 Hour Fitness). Like the court in Peng, we adhere to the reasoning expressed in 24 Hour Fitness and the cases that have followed it, and conclude that the Bank’s arbitration agreement is not substantively unconscionable. We therefore reverse the order denying the motion to compel arbitration.
Comments on Edwards v. First Republic Bank