Narrative Opinion Summary
The district court's denial of LensCrafters' motion to compel arbitration is upheld based on California law, which deems the prohibition of class action lawsuits within arbitration agreements as unconscionable. This conclusion aligns with precedent set in cases such as Ingle v. Circuit City Stores, Inc. and Ting v. AT&T, which establish that bans on class-wide arbitration violate California’s unconscionability doctrine. Additionally, the provision in the arbitration agreement that grants LensCrafters' CEO unilateral power to modify the agreement is also deemed unconscionable, echoing findings in Ingle. The panel acknowledges the California Supreme Court's pending reviews in Discover Bank v. Superior Court and Mandel v. Household Bank but maintains that it must adhere to existing binding precedents unless overturned by an en banc decision or higher court ruling. The decision is affirmed and noted as not suitable for publication or citation in this circuit, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Adherence to Precedent Pending Higher Court Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The panel must follow existing precedents unless they are overturned by an en banc decision or a higher court, even while higher court reviews are pending.
Reasoning: The panel acknowledges the California Supreme Court's pending reviews in Discover Bank v. Superior Court and Mandel v. Household Bank but maintains that it must adhere to existing binding precedents unless overturned by an en banc decision or higher court ruling.
Modification Power in Arbitration Agreementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An arbitration agreement clause granting unilateral modification power to one party is considered unconscionable under California law.
Reasoning: The provision in the arbitration agreement that grants LensCrafters' CEO unilateral power to modify the agreement is also deemed unconscionable, echoing findings in Ingle.
Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision is designated as not suitable for publication or citation within the circuit according to specific court rules.
Reasoning: The decision is affirmed and noted as not suitable for publication or citation in this circuit, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Unconscionability of Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: California law considers arbitration agreements that prohibit class action lawsuits as unconscionable, thereby invalidating such clauses.
Reasoning: The district court's denial of LensCrafters' motion to compel arbitration is upheld based on California law, which deems the prohibition of class action lawsuits within arbitration agreements as unconscionable.