Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Merchant of Tennis: Curative Notice Had to Reflect California Rescission Law

Decision: California Court of Appeal, E085766, decided April 2, 2026. Document: Published California Court of Appeal opinion and modification order.

Merchant of Tennis examines what workers must be told when a class-action court permits them to rescind individual settlement agreements allegedly obtained through fraud or duress.

Hundreds of individual settlements

During a pending wage-and-hour class action, the employer paid more than $875,000 under approximately 954 individual settlement agreements. The trial court found the releases voidable and proposed a curative notice allowing signers to revoke and join the class.

The repayment consequence was disputed

The employer argued California Civil Code sections 1689 and 1691 required restoring settlement consideration upon rescission and that the notice had to disclose possible repayment. The workers argued immediate repayment would deter participation and that any amount could be handled as a later offset.

Statutory restoration and prejudice both mattered

The majority held the curative process had to be reconsidered under California rescission law. Section 1693 allows delayed restoration where immediate restoration is impossible or would cause substantial prejudice, but that is a reasoned equitable determination—not a basis to omit material consequences without analysis.

Disposition and disagreement

The court issued a writ directing the trial court to vacate its notice ruling and reconsider it consistently with the opinion; each side bore its costs. A dissent would have upheld broader equitable discretion, underscoring that the decision did not finally adjudicate every signer's restitution obligation.

Key takeaways

Discuss the procedural record

Mishra X Trial Lawyers represents clients in California. Call (949) 343-9735 or email office@mishrax.com.