Bigler v. Harker School
213 Cal. App. 4th 727
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Shivani Bigler attended Harker School from 1999 to 2011 and signed annual enrollment contracts, including the 2010-2011 contract containing an arbitration clause.
- Shivani’s guardians filed a complaint alleging eight causes of action against Harker and teacher Itokazu, including battery, defamation, and negligent hiring, retention, and/or supervision.
- The Biglers initiated contractual arbitration for their own claims, while Shivani’s claims remained in court, creating a potential overlap under the same dispute facts.
- The enrollment contract provides arbitration for “any dispute involving the School” in Santa Clara County under AAA rules, with the arbitrator’s decision final and fees shifted to the prevailing party.
- The superior court later upheld unconscionability findings against the contract and severability issues, leading to the petition to compel arbitration being denied; the appeal reverses this disposition.
- The appellate court ultimately holds the arbitration clause valid and applicable to Shivani’s tort claims, and reverses the denial of arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration clause is unconscionable | Biglers contend clause is procedurally and substantively unconscionable | Harker argues clause is valid and enforceable | Arbitration clause valid and enforceable |
| Whether tort claims fall within the scope of arbitration | Shivani’s tort claims are outside the clause’s scope | Clause broadly covers any dispute involving the School | All claims are subject to arbitration under the clause |
| Equitable estoppel/waiver regarding Biglers’ arbitration demands | Biglers’ independent action should defeat estoppel | Biglers’ arbitration conduct does not preclude Shivani’s arbitration | Equitable estoppel not applied; Shivani’s claims may proceed to arbitration |
| Severability of the attorney-fee provision and tuition carve-out | Fees and carve-out render the clause unconscionable | Fees could be severed; tuition carve-out acceptable | Attorney-fee provision severable; no pervasive unconscionability found |
Key Cases Cited
- Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000) (framework for unconscionability; extent of procedural and substantive analysis)
- Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 443 (Cal. 2007) (more substantiveness affects unconscionability balance)
- Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1992) (strong public policy in favor of arbitration; limits of review)
- Victoria v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.3d 734 (Cal. 1985) (scope of arbitration when attack is outside employment/services)
- RN Solution, Inc. v. Catholic Healthcare West, 165 Cal.App.4th 1511 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2008) (scope of arbitration in business relationship context)