Bond v. California Department of Motor Vehicles

# Case Name Tentative

(4) provides for all of the types of relief that would otherwise be available in court, and (5) does not require employees to pay either unreasonable costs or any arbitrators' fees or expenses as a condition of access to the arbitration forum;’” emphasis added, internal citations omitted]; Ex. A to Petition [requiring arbitration by “a retired California Superior Court Judge” who “shall be subject to disqualification on the same grounds as would apply to a judge of such court”].)

The remaining Armendariz factors are also satisfied. (Ex. A to Petition [incorporating discovery provisions of Code Civ. Proc., § 1283.05 “and all of the Act's other mandatory and permissive rights to discovery,” written award, no limits on available relief].)

Finally, failure to provide arbitral rules is grounds to find procedural unconscionability, not substantive unconscionability. (Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 227, 244–245 [collecting cases].)

The case management conference is VACATED.

Moving party shall give notice of this ruling.

59. Bond v. Petitioner Rody John Bond’s petition for writ of mandate is California CONTINUED to September 14, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in this Department department. of Motor Bond is ordered to serve the Department of Motor Vehicles Vehicles with the petition and notice of the continued hearing no later 2026- than July 17, 2026, and file a proof of service with the court 01557585 within 5 days of service. Bond shall also lodge a copy of the administrative record with the court by August 17, 2026.

The court sets an Order to Show Cause hearing for August 28, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. to address why this petition should not be dismissed. If Bond fails to comply with the above order, the petition shall be dismissed, unless Bond appears on August 28, 2026 and shows good cause why the petition should not be dismissed.

Clerk shall give notice of this ruling.

60.

61.

62.

63.