David Bowie - ADA defense lawyer lyrics
[David Bowie - ADA defense lawyer lyrics]
Defendant car dealer appealed an
Order from the
Superior Court of Los Angeles County
(California)
Which denied the dealer's petition to compel
Arbitration of plaintiff buyer's
Suit alleging violations of the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA) , Civ code, §§ 1750-1784
And other consumer protection laws
The arbitration provision allowed an
Appeal to a three-member
Panel of a monetary award
Exceeding $100, 000
Allowed appeal of an award
Of injunctive reliеf, required
Advance paymеnt of arbitral
Expenses on appeal
And exempted repossession from
Arbitration the buyer stated in his
Declaration that he was not given
An opportunity to read the
Contract and was not aware that
It had an arbitration
Provision on the reverse side the
ADA defense lawyer court concluded
That the arbitration provision was
Unconscionable under Civ code
§ 16705, and could not be
Cured by severance thus
It's enforcement was properly refused
Under Code Civ proc, §§ 1281
12812 the arbitration provision satisfied the
Two elements of procedural unconscionability
Oppression and surprise
Because the contract was one of adhesion
And the buyer was not given
An opportunity to read the
Provision it was also
Substantively unconscionable
Because multiple aspects of
The arbitration provision tilted it decidedly
In favor of the dealer and caused it to be
Permeated by unconscionability moreover
Injunctive relief from the
Arbitrator was inconsistent
With the CLRA some of
The offending clauses could not be
Cured by striking them
The court affirmed the order
Petitioner investors petitioned for a
Writ of mandate
Directing respondent trial court to set aside
It's order denying their motions to restore
Their lawsuit against real party in
Interest securities dealers
Alleging negligence
Breach of fiduciary duty
And conversion to the active
Civil trial calendar the California Court of
Appeal, Second Appellate District
Division Seven
Denied the petition the investors
Petitioned for review
The National Association of
Securities Dealers
(NASD) was a self-regulatory
Organization that
Licensed and regulated broker-dealers
In the national securities industry
Through it's wholly-owned subsidiary
NASD had adopted a code of
Arbitration procedure to govern
The arbitration of disputes between
It's members and their
Customers the Securities and
Exchange Commission
(SEC) had approved NASD's procedures
The court held that
Cal code Civ proc § 128185 (a)
Authorized the California Judicial Council
To adopt ethics
Standards for arbitrators appointed
By arbitration providers, but it
Also held also that the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 preempted § 128185
(a) and the California Ethics
Standards for Neutral Arbitrators
In Contractual Arbitration
(California Standards) for arbitrations
Administered by the subsidiary in
Determining that the
NASD Code should preempt
The California Standards, the
SEC acted within it's authority
And it's determination was neither arbitrary
Nor unreasonable a delay in
Arbitrator selection and appointment
Resulting from uncertainty regarding
The applicability of the
California Standards
Did not relieve the investors of
Their duty to arbitrate
The appellate court's judgment was affirmed
Order from the
Superior Court of Los Angeles County
(California)
Which denied the dealer's petition to compel
Arbitration of plaintiff buyer's
Suit alleging violations of the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA) , Civ code, §§ 1750-1784
And other consumer protection laws
The arbitration provision allowed an
Appeal to a three-member
Panel of a monetary award
Exceeding $100, 000
Allowed appeal of an award
Of injunctive reliеf, required
Advance paymеnt of arbitral
Expenses on appeal
And exempted repossession from
Arbitration the buyer stated in his
Declaration that he was not given
An opportunity to read the
Contract and was not aware that
It had an arbitration
Provision on the reverse side the
ADA defense lawyer court concluded
That the arbitration provision was
Unconscionable under Civ code
§ 16705, and could not be
Cured by severance thus
It's enforcement was properly refused
Under Code Civ proc, §§ 1281
12812 the arbitration provision satisfied the
Two elements of procedural unconscionability
Oppression and surprise
Because the contract was one of adhesion
And the buyer was not given
An opportunity to read the
Provision it was also
Substantively unconscionable
Because multiple aspects of
The arbitration provision tilted it decidedly
In favor of the dealer and caused it to be
Permeated by unconscionability moreover
Injunctive relief from the
Arbitrator was inconsistent
With the CLRA some of
The offending clauses could not be
Cured by striking them
The court affirmed the order
Petitioner investors petitioned for a
Writ of mandate
Directing respondent trial court to set aside
It's order denying their motions to restore
Their lawsuit against real party in
Interest securities dealers
Alleging negligence
Breach of fiduciary duty
And conversion to the active
Civil trial calendar the California Court of
Appeal, Second Appellate District
Division Seven
Denied the petition the investors
Petitioned for review
The National Association of
Securities Dealers
(NASD) was a self-regulatory
Organization that
Licensed and regulated broker-dealers
In the national securities industry
Through it's wholly-owned subsidiary
NASD had adopted a code of
Arbitration procedure to govern
The arbitration of disputes between
It's members and their
Customers the Securities and
Exchange Commission
(SEC) had approved NASD's procedures
The court held that
Cal code Civ proc § 128185 (a)
Authorized the California Judicial Council
To adopt ethics
Standards for arbitrators appointed
By arbitration providers, but it
Also held also that the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 preempted § 128185
(a) and the California Ethics
Standards for Neutral Arbitrators
In Contractual Arbitration
(California Standards) for arbitrations
Administered by the subsidiary in
Determining that the
NASD Code should preempt
The California Standards, the
SEC acted within it's authority
And it's determination was neither arbitrary
Nor unreasonable a delay in
Arbitrator selection and appointment
Resulting from uncertainty regarding
The applicability of the
California Standards
Did not relieve the investors of
Their duty to arbitrate
The appellate court's judgment was affirmed