Francisco Corchado vs Claudia Corchado

Inc., (2016) 62. Cal.4th 1237, 1244.) In other words, because procedural unconscionability has been found, the analysis turns on consideration of the substantive unconscionability prong. The substantive inquiry considers whether the overall bargain is overly harsh or unreasonably one sided. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114.)

Here, the terms of the arbitration agreement are not so harsh, unreasonable, or unfairly one sided as to render the agreement unconscionable. The arbitration agreement has the requisite modicum of bilaterality, is limited to Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, provides for a neutral arbitrator that must follow the law, provides adequate discovery, provides types of relief otherwise available in this court, and Defendant is to pay for costs unique to arbitration. The fact that the arbitration agreement contains a class, collective, or other representative action waiver does not render the arbitration agreement unconscionable.

This action is stayed pending arbitration.

An arbitration status hearing is set for Thursday, January 14, 2027, at 8:15 a.m. in Courtroom 8.

The court will sign the order lodged with the court on June 22, 2026.

26CV-03727 Francisco Corchado vs Claudia Corchado

Order to Show Cause Re: Restraining Order

Appearance required. Proof of timely personal service on Respondent has been filed with the court.