Arbitration Agreement Not Unconscionable.

Plaintiff and defendant entered into an employment contract. One of the provisions stated:  “All disputes among the parties arising out of or related to this Agreement which have not been settled by mediation shall be resolved by binding arbitration within the State of Washington. . . .” Another provision stated: “This agreement shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the state of Washington, without giving effect to principles and provisions thereof relating to conflict or choice of laws, and irrespective of the fact that any one of the parties is now or may become a resident of a different state. Venue for any action under this Agreement shall lie in King County, Washington.” The trial court found the contract unconscionable and declined to order the matter into arbitration. The appellate court, noting that mere inconvenience and additional expense was not persuasive, held the agreement, including the forum selection clause was not unconscionable. (Galen v. Redfin Corporation (Cal. App. First Dist., Div. 1; July 21, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1525, [174 Cal.Rptr.3d 847].)