Najarro v. Super. Ct.
Annotate this CaseIn a companion case, where an employee claimed she was forced to sign an arbitration agreement after litigation had commenced and without the benefit of her counsel, the Court of Appeal issued an order to show cause why relief should not have been granted. Although this case generally did not present the same factual scenario, the Court issued an order to show cause following motions to compel arbitration because this case was ordered related to the other and involves the same defendants. Here, the trial court granted the motions for eight employees, each of whom signed one of two versions of arbitration agreements. Because the first version did not clearly and unmistakably delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the Court granted the writ petition as to the employees who signed that version. As to two of these employees, the trial court had to decide whether this first version was unconscionable, guided by the Court's analysis in this opinion. As to the other two employees who signed this version, the Court of Appeal found that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable for the separate reason of fraud in the execution. Furthermore, the Court found that fraud in the execution voided the agreement for two of the employees who signed the other, second version of the arbitration agreement. The petition was denied as to the remaining two employees who signed the second version.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.