Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05266/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05266-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN BREAZEALE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VICTIM SERVICES, INC. D/B/A 

CORRECTIVESOLUTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05266-VC 

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER 

BRIEFING

Re: Dkt. No. 92

The Court is of the view that plaintiff Narisha Bonakdar's primary argument in opposition 

to defendant Victim Services, Inc.'s motion to compel (namely, that no valid contract was formed 

between Ms. Bonakdar and VSI) is without merit. However, the Court requests further briefing 

on the question whether the arbitration provision itself is unlawful. Specifically, when the State 

uses a private company to assist in the operation of the criminal justice system, is it ever 

appropriate for disputes that arise between the private company and citizens who have been 

pulled into the criminal justice system to be resolved through arbitration? Would an agreement 

to arbitrate disputes of this type be substantively unconscionable under California law? Would 

an agreement to arbitrate disputes of this type violate the California Constitution? The United 

States Constitution? 

Ms. Bonakdar's supplemental brief is due April 6, 2016. VSI's response is due April 13, 

2016. The briefs may not exceed 20 pages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2016

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05266-VC Document 120 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case 3:14-cv-05266-VC Document 120 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 2