Case Explained: COCOM V. ABM AVIATION, INC., ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-23 Docket: 2:24-cv-08389- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment denying enforcement of a Mutual Arbitration Agreement (MAA) in a putative wage and hour class action, holding that the agreement is not substantively unconscionable under California law. The panel concluded that the MAA’s scope was limited to employment-related disputes, distinguishing it from *Cook v. University of Southern California*, which found an arbitration agreement unconscionable because it covered claims unrelated to employment. Because the MAA’s scope was restricted to employment matters, the court further held that the agreement’s duration was not indefinite and that any lack of mutuality regarding third parties did not rise to the level of substantive unconscionability. Additionally, the panel determined that a provision barring arbitration awards from having preclusive or precedential effect merely restated California’s default rule and was not unconscionable. Even assuming without deciding that waivers of representative PAGA actions and public injunctive relief were substantively unconscionable, the court found these provisions severable under California law because they were collateral to the contract’s central purpose of arbitrating employment claims. As substantive unconscionability is dispositive for the defense, the court declined to address arguments regarding procedural unconscionability. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, effectively allowing ABM Aviation to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.