Solorzano v. Mavenform CA1/2, A171332

Plaintiff Esther Solorzano entered an income share agreement with Pathrise, a career accelerator program, which included an arbitration clause with a class action waiver and a 'poison pill' provision invalidating the entire arbitration agreement if the waiver was found unenforceable.
Solorzano sued Pathrise, alleging deceptive business practices and violations of California consumer protection statutes, and sought both individual and public injunctive relief including to stop Pathrise’s alleged unlawful operations.
Pathrise moved to compel arbitration under the income share agreement, arguing the claims did not implicate public injunctive relief or that such relief could be severed if present.
The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding the agreement impermissibly waived the right to seek public injunctive relief contrary to California law, and refused to sever the waiver due to the poison pill provision.
Pathrise appealed the denial, contending the trial court misapplied relevant precedent regarding public injunctive relief and the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Solorzano's complaint seek public injunctive relief?	Yes; seeks relief to benefit the public by stopping Pathrise's unlawful operations.	No; claims are private, not public injunctive relief.	Yes; the complaint seeks public injunctive relief under precedent.
Is the arbitration agreement's restriction on injunctive relief an impermissible waiver under California law?	Yes; the agreement waives public injunctive relief, prohibited by McGill.	No; the agreement only limits procedural devices (class actions), not substantive remedies (public injunctive relief).	Yes; the restriction mirrors previously invalidated language and is unenforceable.
Should unenforceable portions be severed to allow arbitration of the remaining claims?	No; the poison pill clause makes the entire agreement void if the waiver is unenforceable.	Yes; sever claims as needed and arbitrate the rest.	No; poison pill prevents severance, so the agreement is void.
Does federal law or conflicting authority supersede California's rule in McGill?	No; McGill controls and is not preempted.	Cited nonbinding federal authority (DiCarlo) supporting broader arbitration remedies.	No; California law and precedent govern; federal case not binding or on point.

McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal.5th 945 (Cal. 2017) (arbitration agreements waiving right to public injunctive relief are unenforceable under California law)
Jack v. Ring LLC, 91 Cal.App.5th 1186 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (arbitration clause language limiting injunctive relief to individual claims is unenforceable)
Ramsey v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 99 Cal.App.5th 197 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (public injunctive relief defined and distinguished from private relief)