In a non-franchise case, the court in Liebrand v. Brinker Rest. Corp., 2008 WL 2445544 (Cal. App. 4 Dist. June 18, 2008), upheld the trial court’s denial of Brinker’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding it had failed to meet its burden of proving Liebrand agreed to arbitrate an employment dispute. The trial court determined that the arbitration agreement was void because it was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, specifically because it was an adhesion contract that mandated arbitration take place in Texas and required that Liebrand share the costs. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the agreement was an oppressive and adhesive arbitration agreement and was essentially a condition of employment.
The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
About this Publication
The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP.
To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here.
RSS Feed