|
P0908 In franchise agreements containing arbitration requirements, a ban on group or consolidated arbitrations and language depriving arbitrators of the power to award punitive and other damages authorized by statutes under which actions were brought were unenforceable due to unconscionability; pending arbitration of disputes arising under franchise agreements, a trial court should not have stayed related proceedings brought under franchise agreements not containing arbitration clauses; although cost and fee shifting determinations properly can be left to arbitrators in claims brought under common law, the court should make cost and fee shifting determinations regarding statutory claims before sending them to arbitration.CitationINDEPENDENT ASSN OF MAILBOX CTR OWNERS v SUPERIOR COURT (Mailboxes Etc) 133 CA4 396 [See: CCP 1281 etseq; Armendariz v Foundation 24 C4 83, T/AT 9/00; Stirlen v Supercuts 51 CA4 1519, T/AT 3/97; Discover Bank v Superior Court 36 C4 148, P/AT 7/05]
|
|
