Opinion ID: 3064512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sworn Testimony Regarding Financial Hardship

Text: Finally, Kam-Ko contends that the district court erred by disregarding the declaration that Kam-Ko submitted regarding the company’s alleged lack of assets and inability to pay the $220,000 arbitration fee. This argument fails for two reasons. First, although Kam-Ko argues that the district court “ignored” its declaration regarding its alleged financial hardship, that assertion is factually incorrect. The district court explicitly noted in its order that “Kam-Ko represents to the Court that if the arbitration clause is enforced, it will be unable to proceed due to its inability to pay the arbitration fee,” and then cited the declaration in support of that proposition. KAM-KO BIO-PHARM v. MAYNE PHARMA 3205 [10] Second, as noted above, “[i]n a purely commercial transaction . . . , the fact an unfortunate result occurs after the contracting process does not render an otherwise standard limitation of remedies clause substantively unconscionable.” M.A. Mortenson Co., 998 P.2d at 315. Thus, the fact that Kam-Ko—a mere shell company that distributed many millions of dollars directly to its stakeholders—claims it is “unable to pay” many years after it proposed and agreed to the arbitration clause, does not create a genuine issue of material fact.