Cited by

-47, ¶ 16 (App. 2005) (citation omitted); see also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Western Techs., Inc., (“Generally, .

¶10 The denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reviewed de novo, Fuller, 242 Ariz. at 515 ¶ 9, recognizing this court will defer to the superior court’s findings of fact absent clear error, –47 ¶ 16 (App. 2005).

¶ 27 (App. 2005) (rejecting the argument that an arbitration clause must conspicuously or explicitly waive the right to a jury trial to be valid and citing other cases noting that the “loss of the right to a jury trial is a necessary and fairly obvious consequence of an agreement to arbitrate.” (quoting Snowden

See, –53, ¶¶ 42–49 (App. 2005); Clark v. Renaissance W., LLC, –13, ¶¶ 8–13 (App. 2013); Gullett, 241 Ariz. at 535–40, 9 DUNCAN, et al v. PUBLIC STORAGE Opinion of the Court ¶¶ 7–25; Falcone Bros. & Assocs., Inc. v.

“[W]e defer, absent clear error, to the factual findings upon which the trial court’s conclusions are based.” –47, ¶ 16 (App. 2005).

Power Prod., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 12 (2017) (contract interpretation); –47, ¶ 16 (App. 2005) (“reasonable-expectations claims may present questions of both fact and law,” and we will apply the clear-error standard to review factual findings, but “[w]e will review the trial court’s conclusions of law .

Discovery ¶ 8 Gullett first argues the Agreement is substantively unconscionable “be *536 cause it so limits discovery (and therefore witnesses) that [he would] be unable to prepare and present his APSA claims.” “[Arbitration is appropriate only ‘[s]o long as the prospective litigant effectively may vindicate’ his or her rights in the arbitral forum.” , quoting Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 28 , 111 S.Ct.

¶ 2 ( 246- 47, ¶¶ 8, 16 (App. 2005)).

-47, ¶ 16, -50 (App. 2005).

¶¶ 8, 16, 1049-50 (App. 2005).

–47, ¶ 16, –50 (App. 2005).

at 513, ¶ 10 , 307 P.3d at 80 ; , ¶ ¶ 47-49

¶ 7, -47, ¶ 16, -50 (App. 2005) (“We must defer, absent clear error, to the factual findings upon which the trial court’s conclusions are based.”).

“We must defer, absent clear error, to the factual findings upon which the trial court’s conclusions are based.” -50 (App. 2005).

252, ¶¶ 16, 40 , 1055 (App.2005).

of Health of City of Globe, , 179 P. 55, 61 (1919) (local board of health measure was an enforceable order and therefore binding upon the school district); ¶ 55 , (concluding that arbitration clause in purchase agreement was enforceable); Burley Tobacco Soc’y v. Gillaspy, 51 Ind.App.

Co., , ¶ 18 , Restatement § 211(3).