“[T]he Act 2 puts arbitration agreements on an equal footing with contracts in general. [Quotes.] In light of this objective, the Supreme Court stated: “Thus, contractual disputes of general application, such as fraud, coercion or non-compliance with arbitration agreements, can be applied without violating the provisions of page 2. [Quotes].` (Doctor`s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto[(1996)] 517 U.S. [681,] 687.) However, the law anticipates legislation that invalidates the explicit terms of an arbitration agreement. (Blue Cross, supra, 67 Cal.App.4. on 51.) The first instance found Szetela to be a new and controlling authority on the proposition that, under California law, the waiver of arbitration is unacceptable and therefore unenforceable. The trial explained in part: “We now know, after Szetela, who binds this court, that the result is different from that obtained by Delaware law under California law. In other words, California law deems unacceptable and unenforceable a provision of the treaty by which a consumer waives the right to bring a class action. All 30 conditions of the issuer regarding arbitration clauses can be found here. The applicant argues that the possibility of pre-emption is not a problem in this case, as the FAA does not prejudge procedural issues such as the rules of procedure applicable to class actions under state law before the State Court. In support of this position, the applicant cites Blue Cross, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th 42, which decided that because Section 4 of the FAA is not applicable to the State Court (Section 4 requires federal district courts to apply the federal regulation of civil proceedings in determining motions to impose arbitration proceedings) , in the absence of an explicit contrary agreement, state courts may order class-wide arbitration proceedings if eligible under California law.
(Id. on 62-63.) However, the essential difference between this case and Blue Cross is that the agreement contains a class action non-recourse clause here. In Perry, the preliminary proceedings had not considered the applicant`s assertion that the arbitration agreement was an unacceptable and unenforceable contract of liability. In finding that the issue can be dealt with in pre-trial detention, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the choice of legal issues that arise when unscrupulous defences are invoked, and notes, “However, we find that the question of law arises when defences such as thomas are invoked for “standing” and scruple arguments. In cases such as this, the text of paragraph 2 is the stumbling block in the choice between the principles of public law and the principles of general federal law, the provisions in the adoption of this statute: an arbitration agreement is valid, irrevocable and enforceable, as is federal law, see Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1. , 24 (1983) , “for legal or equity reasons to save for the revocation of a contract.” 9 U.S.C.