California Supreme Court

Subscribe to California Supreme Court via RSS

The California Supreme Court held in Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. (Feb. 2, 2026) that small or blurry print in an arbitration agreement does not automatically invalidate the agreement as unconscionable. Instead, the Court clarified that “illegibility” may create procedural unconscionability – i.e., unfairness in the way the agreement was presented to an employee –…

Several employment-related cases are currently pending before the California Supreme Court, and their outcomes could have a significant impact on workplace policies and risk management for employers and HR professionals.

Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc.

 This case addresses whether a form arbitration agreement required as a condition of employment is unenforceable due to unconscionability.

The…

The California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court addressed whether California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, which requires the party that drafted the arbitration agreement to pay arbitration fees within 30 days of the due date or face consequences such as forfeiting arbitration rights, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act…

California courts, like most federal courts, have historically held that a party does not waive its contractual right to compel arbitration unless the party opposing arbitration has been prejudiced by the moving party’s delay in seeking arbitration.  However, last term in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that the Federal Arbitration…

Castellanos v. State of California centered on the constitutionality of Proposition 22, the “Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act,” which allowed app-based rideshare and delivery companies to hire drivers as independent contractors if certain conditions were met. 

In its recent decision, the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 22, affirming the Court of…

The California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, affirming in part that the arbitration agreement contained some substantive unconscionability but remanding the case to determine whether the agreement could be salvaged by severing the unconscionable provisions. In doing so, the California Supreme Court clarified its view on the enforceability of…

On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills. In the Estrada decision, the California Supreme Court resolved a split of authority on the issue of whether trial courts have discretion to strike or narrow a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim based upon manageability grounds.…

On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana that bilateral arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) may require arbitration of California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims on an individual basis only.

However, Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion in Viking River Cruises also seemingly included…