Wisdom v. AccentCare 1/3/12 CA3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: C065744

Case Date: 03/28/2012

Preview:Filed 1/3/12

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)

MELISSA WISDOM et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ACCENTCARE, INC. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

C065744 (Super. Ct. No. 342009-00063028CU OE GDS)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Steven H. Rodda, Judge. Affirmed. Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Robert J. Kane, Peter L. Wucetich, for Defendants and Appellants. Spinelli, Donald, Nott; LaPlante, Spinelli, Donald & Nott, Domenic D. Spinelli, Amanda S. Uhrhammer, Monica M. Espejo, for Plaintiffs and Respondents. In this case we decide that a clause in an application for employment with AccentCare, Inc. (AccentCare), requiring only the applicant agree that, if hired, all disputes that cannot be resolved informally will be submitted to binding arbitration is 1

both procedurally and substantively unenforceable as unconscionable. A court can refuse to enforce an unconscionable provision in a contract. (Civ. Code,

Download Wisdom v. AccentCare 1/3/12 CA3.pdf