Comments on: Bill banning forced arbitration on Gov. Brown’s desk

By: lazy eye

lazy eye — Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:40:30 +0000

Largely an exercise in futility. The overwhelming pro-arbitration policy in federal law (as expanded by the U.S. Supreme Court over the last 20+ years) invalidates any state law that outright forbids arbitration of specific claims, even civil rights claims. California courts have been forced to retreat from various anti-arbitration decisions. The scope of federal preemption in this area is the broadest possible, and is itself a question of federal law. That makes it immune from state court efforts to restrict application of federal law (not that that California state courts aren’t trying, good for them). The five chamber-of-commerce justices (aided and abetted by the four “liberal” wimp justices) have used federal arbitration law to effectively re-institute the early-1900s Lochner regime of “economic due process.” The reality that these arbitration provisions are forced on weaker parties by stronger parties in “contracts” involving life necessities (jobs, health care, cell phones, cars) doesn’t concern the Supreme Court. No Democratic congressman, and certainly not President Obama, attempts to do anything about it (the Republicans are all for it, of course). The pretense is that BOTH sides have to arbitrate, so it’s fair, right? “The law, in its majestic equality, equally forbids the rich and the poor from begging in the streets, sleeping under bridges, and stealing bread.” Well, because the business side is a repeat customer, and the arbitrator gets paid directly by the parties, the arbitrator knows that if he or she rules against the repeat customer, he won’t be in business very long. Good for California in calling BS on chamber of commerce justices of the Supreme Court. However, the law will have no, or extremely limited, practical effect.

By: Rex the Wonder Dog!

Rex the Wonder Dog! — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:46:22 +0000

LOL@ 650,000 CA lawyers! 🙂

Try about 175K current, living lawyers, of which maybe half that are active AND actually practicing law.

Arbitration is a scam, the only ones who do it are Big Businesses and similarly situated where there are no other options. Harvard Westlake is the top private school in LA, so they may be able to get away with it. I would never sign a contract like this, which is referred to as an “Adhesion Contract”.

By: Ulysess Uhaul

Ulysess Uhaul — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:27:28 +0000

Over 650,000 attorneys in California…….they have to eat too!

Real estate contracts and disclosures are intended to be very consumer friendly reading……every page of ten pounds of papers.

Whew-

By: Wayne Lusvardi

Wayne Lusvardi — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:23:16 +0000

The California Association of Realtors Residential and Commercial Purchase Agreement forms provide for mandatory arbitration rather than a court trial for all real estate disputes.

One way this can be abused is that a buyer can sign and purchase agreement with a seller and has 10 days to verify that he/she has sufficient funds to close the transaction. If he can’t verify that he has the funds or he doesn’t have enough money to buy the property, the seller has the right to cancel the contract. But if the seller reasonably cancels the contract for failure of buyer to verify funds or prove enough funds, the buyer can still force the seller into mandatory arbitration at a cost of about $125,000 in legal fees to settle the dispute. This is nothing but a full employment act for lawyers and a way for rich developers to extort small property owners. I commend Assemblywoman Weber for taking on this issue.

By: LetitCollapse

LetitCollapse — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:14:25 +0000

Civil rights or hate crime cases in the workplace?

Straight white males move along. Nothing to see here.