Gonzalez v. Metro Nissan of Redlands
Apparently many new car dealers in California use a form purchase and sale contract, which includes a form arbitration clause. The question of whether this form arbitration clause is unconscionable or not has produced no fewer than five published appellate opinions so far: Vargas v. SAI Monrovia B, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1269 (unconscionable), review granted, August 21, 2013, S212033; Vasquez v. Greene Motors, Inc. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1172 (not unconscionable), review granted June 26, 2013, S210439; Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 587 (unconscionable), review granted, May 1, 2013, S209324; Flores v. West Covina Auto Group (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 895 (not unconscionable), review granted, April 10, 2013, S208716; Goodridge v. KDF Automotive Group, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 325 (unconscionable), review granted, December 19, 2012, S206153; Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 74 (unconscionable), review granted, March 21, 2012, S199119. As noted, the California Supreme Court has granted review in all these cases; however, it has not yet decided any.
Comments on Gonzalez v. Metro Nissan of Redlands