Thompson v. RC USA Holdings, Ltd., et al.

32

provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.” Benjamin Decl. Ex. 1 (DRA at 4). “If a contractual clause is found unconscionable, the court may, in its discretion, choose to do one of the following: (1) refuse to enforce the contract; (2) sever any unconscionable clause; or (3) limit the application of any clause to avoid unconscionable results. [Citation.] The ‘strong legislative and judicial preference is to sever the offending term and enforce the balance of the agreement.’ [Citation.]

Though the ‘statute appears to give a trial court some discretion as to whether to sever or restrict the unconscionable provision or whether to refuse to enforce the entire agreement,’ it ‘also appears to contemplate the latter course only when an agreement is “permeated” by unconscionability.’” Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 478, 513.

As discussed above, several aspects of the DRA are unconscionable. Defendant argues the court should sever any unconscionable provisions because “the central purpose of the DRA is lawful: to require bilateral arbitration of covered employment disputes.” Reply at 8:17-18. To the contrary, as discussed above, the DRA appears drafted to require plaintiff to arbitrate an array of claims she might have against defendant and an undefined list of other entities and people, with defendant able to compel arbitration of claims against it and the other entities and people, and plaintiff only able to compel arbitration of claims by defendant against her.

In addition, the agreement contains a plainly unenforceable waiver of an employee’s right to bring PAGA claims. Remedying the deficiencies here would require substantive rewriting of the DRA to limit and contradict its plain language. Under these circumstances, the court declines to sever the unconscionable provisions and declines to enforce the agreement.

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections (ROA 35) are overruled. Plaintiff to give notice.

Status Conference

The court has reviewed the parties’ joint status conference statement filed May 20, 2026 (ROA 37). The May 28, 2026 status conference is continued to September 17, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX105. The parties are ordered to file a joint status conference statement at least 5 court days before the hearing. Clerk to give notice. 12 Thompson v. RC USA Holdings, Ltd., et al.