Mills v. Facility Solutions Group

Docket NumberB313943
Decision Date01 November 2022
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
15 cases
  • Ramirez v. Charter Comm., Inc.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 15 Julio 2024
    ...[69] In conducting this analysis, the court may also consider the deterrent effect of each option. As Mills v Facility Solutions Group, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 1035, 300 Cal.Rptr.3d 833 explained, severing multiple unconscionable provisions from an agreement and enforcing the remainder c......
  • Ramirez v. Charter Comm., Inc.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 15 Julio 2024
    ...In conducting this analysis, the court may also consider the deterrent effect of each option. As Mills v. Facility Solutions Group, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal. App.5th 1035, 300 Cal.Rptr.3d 833 explained, severing multiple unconscionable provisions from an agreement and enforcing the remainder coul......
  • GC Bros. Entm't LLC v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 1 Noviembre 2022
  • Ruiz v. Conduent Commercial Sols.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 11 Mayo 2023
    ...public policy. See Viking River, 142 S.Ct. at 1924-25; Piplack, 88 Cal.App.5th at 1287-88; Galarsa, 88 Cal.App.5th at 648-52; Mills, 84 Cal.App.5th at 1063. UDRP waives Ruiz's right to initiate or participate in any representative action. See Odle Dec. Exs. 1, 4. This is a broad waiver that......
  • Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
  • Mcle Self-study: Galarsa v. Dolgen Narrows Viking River on Arbitrability of Paga Claims
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Labor & Employment Law Review (CLA) No. 37-3, May 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...action in any forum contributes to substantive unconscionability of arbitration agreement); Mills v. Facility Solutions Group, Inc., 84 Cal. App. 5th 1035, 1062 (2022) (holding that a waiver of all representative claims was one of numerous substantively unconscionable provisions in the at-i......
  • Adr Update
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Labor & Employment Law Review (CLA) No. 37-2, March 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...provisions applied only to mandatory predispute arbitration agreements.UNCONSIONABILITY ANALYSIS Mills v. Facility Sols. Grp., Inc., 84 Cal. App. 5th 1035 (2022)In Mills, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration based on unconscionability, and ......
  • Alternate Dispute Resolution Update
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Litigation Review (CLA) No. 2022, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...plaintiff in the representative claim because he was an "aggrieved employee." See Howitson, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 488.15. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 1035, 1064.16. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 626, 635.17. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 983.18. (AAA).19. S274671.20. (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1708 (Morgan).21. See ......