Pinnacle Museum Tower Association, Plaintiff and Respondent v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), — Kennard, J…

Summary

Justice Kennard’s dissent would conclude that the condominium owners association never consented to the arbitration provision because the developer recorded it before the association independently existed. The dissent would affirm the Court of Appeal’s refusal to compel arbitration, reasoning that individual owners could not consent on the association’s behalf and that compulsory arbitration would deprive the association of its constitutional jury-trial right. Justice Werdegar, concurring, would enforce the provision under the Davis-Stirling Act on narrower statutory grounds, while Justice Liu, concurring, agreed that the statutory scheme supplied sufficient consent and that the provision should be evaluated for substantive unconscionability.