Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0632-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jacqueline MCFADDIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. E.A. RENFROE & COMPANY, INC., a Georgia corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Jacqueline McFaddin, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. E.A. Renfroe & Company, Inc., a Georgia corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-55886, No. 15-56404
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted August 8, 2017 Pasadena, California
    Filed October 17, 2017
    John Joseph Manier, Ballard, Rosenberg, Golper & Savitt LLP, Encino, CA, Charles H. Jung, Attorney, Andrew R. Kislik, Attorney, Nassiri & Jung LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Thomas S. Ingrassia, Jenna H. Leyton-Jones, Attorney, Jennifer P, Suberlak, Esquire, Attorney, Pettit Kohn Ingrassia & Lutz PC, San Diego, CA, Kristin Bryance Metheny, Esquire, Attorney, Burr & For-man LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding

California law governs the determination of whether the parties’ arbitration agreement is unconscionable. Under California law, “the strong preference is to sever unless the agreement is permeated by unconscionability.” Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P., 203 Cal. App. 4th 771, 802, 137 Cal. Rptr.3d 773 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co., 846 F.3d 1251, 1272 (9th Cir. 2017). We agree with the district court that the choice of forum provision, the prevailing party provision, and the cost provision are unconscionable. Renfroe stipulated it would not enforce the choice of forum provision, and the prevailing party and cost provisions are severable. See Fittante v. Palm Springs Motors, Inc., 105 Cal. App. 4th 708, 727, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 659 (2003). Hence, we vacate its ruling that the entirety of the arbitration agreement is unenforceable.

The district court did not address whether the arbitration agreement’s waiver of class action claims is enforceable and applies to McFaddin’s California’s Private Attorneys General Act claim. The’ district court shall address this issue before reconsidering whether the agreement remains enforceable.

Appellant’s motion for judicial notice (dkt. 55) is denied.

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.