Paton v. Cingular Wireless
Filed 5/23/06 Paton v. Cingular Wireless CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| DYLAN PATON et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CINGULAR WIRELESS, Defendant and Appellant. | A108816 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-04-428855) |
Defendant Cingular Wireless appeals from an order denying its motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit by plaintiffs Dylan Paton and Jamielynn Storie for alleged overcharges in cell phone service. Defendant contends the trial court erred by finding the arbitration agreement between the parties to be unconscionable. We disagree and affirm. The arbitration agreement is unconscionable because it prohibits classwide arbitration in contravention of the Supreme Court's policy considerations in Discover Bank v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 148 (Discover Bank), as we explain below.
I. FACTS
Plaintiff Paton entered into a contract with defendant for cell phone service on March 27, 2001, when he signed a Wireless Service Agreement (WSA). He signed a second WSA with defendant on March 20, 2002, apparently to obtain a second cell phone number for plaintiff Storie.
The WSA's are in the record on appeal. Defendant agrees that each WSA was a two-sided, single-page document, with the preprinted--and concededly non-negotiated--terms and conditions on the reverse side.
The terms and conditions are contained in a dense mass of single-spaced prose. Included in the provisions was an arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement contained a prohibition on â€
