Search for: "Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000)" Results 1 - 20 of 42
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jul 2017, 12:25 pm
Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 99-100, 103.) [read post]
12 Aug 2014, 9:42 pm by H. Scott Leviant
Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 100 (Armendariz).)Slip op., at 34. [read post]
19 Jul 2013, 7:00 am by Steven B. Katz
Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83 (2000) (declining to enforce employment-related arbitration agreement that did not contain specific procedural safeguards) are pending at various levels of the state and federal courts. [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 8:00 am by Steven G. Pearl
Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83 and Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 8:00 am by Steven G. Pearl
Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83; and  Any requirement in the AAA rules that the plaintiff to pay one half of the arbitration fees should be severed and would not be cause to invalidate the arbitration clause. [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 6:00 am by Jessica E. Hawk
Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, the court found that four clauses in the arbitration provision were unconscionable, including clauses permitting an appeal only from an award exceeding $100,000 or that included injunctive relief, requiring the appealing party to pay appeal costs subject to an apportionment of those costs by the arbitrators, and exempting repossession from arbitration while requiring that requests… [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83 (2000), notwithstanding AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 9:54 am by Steven G. Pearl
Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114, the Court found that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable as a contract of adhesion, implemented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. [read post]