Appellate Victories

• Tauran Collie v. The Icee Company, et al.Court of Appeal Case No. E071654, 4th Appellate District, Division 2, September 22, 2020.

In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny Defendant Companies’ motion to compel arbitration of former employee Plaintiff’s claims under PAGA, holding that an employee cannot be compelled to arbitrate a PAGA cause of action on the basis of a predispute arbitration agreement. “In sum, the [trial] court properly denied Icee’s motion to compel arbitration of Collie’s PAGA action. The state—the real party in interest—is not bound by Collie’s predispute agreement to arbitrate.” Id. at 8. Id. en la pág. 8.

• Jesus Cordova v. The Icee Company, et al.Court of Appeal Case No. E071885, 4th Appellate District, Division 2, September 22, 2020

Simultaneously with the Collie decision (above), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny Icee’s motion to compel arbitration of former employee Plaintiff’s claims under PAGA, holding that the state, as the real party in interest, could not be bound by the Plaintiff Cordova’s predispute arbitration agreement. Since he was “merely acting as the state’s proxy, it [was] immaterial that Cordova’s claims would otherwise be subject to arbitration, had he brought claims other than under PAGA.” Id. at 3-4. Id. en las págs. 3-4.

• Aguirre v. Prudential Overall Supply, et al.Court of Appeal Case No. G057980, 4th Appellate District, Division 3, December 28, 2020

Affirming the trial court’s order denying Defendant company’s motion to compel arbitration of former employee Plaintiff’s complaint for wage and hour violations under PAGA, the Court of Appeal found that: (1) the Parties did not agree to arbitrate Plaintiff’s PAGA claims; (2) even if the Parties had agreed to arbitrate Plaintiff’s PAGA claims, such an agreement was unenforceable under California law; and (3) Plaintiff’s PAGA claims were not subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).

• Woodie v. AER Electronics, et al.Court of Appeal Case No. A159317, 1st Appellate District, Division 3, March 22, 2021

The Court of Appeal for the 1st Appellate District reversed the order of the trial court, holding that the arbitration agreement Defendant company sought to enforce against former employee Plaintiff was void and unenforceable due to its purported waiver of Plaintiff’s right to bring a representative action under PAGA. The arbitration agreement at issue was determined to have a nonseverable class action waiver that, by its plain language, encompassed representative claims under PAGA that cannot be waived under California law. The Appellate Court remanded the case, directing the superior court to enter a new order granting Plaintiff’s motion to declare the arbitration agreement void and unenforceable.

• Herrera v. Centre for Neuro Skills, et al.Court of Appeal Case No. F085587, 5th Appellate District, May 13, 2024

The Court of Appeal for the 5th Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s order denying Defendant company’s motion to compel arbitration of former employee Plaintiff’s claims, holding that Defendant failed to conclusively establish that Plaintiff had electronically signed the arbitration agreement at issue. While Defendant met its initial burden of demonstrating the existence of a purported agreement to arbitrate, Plaintiff also met her burden of production sufficiently challenging the notion that she had accepted the agreement. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal determined that the “evidence was not of such a character and weight as to leave no room for judicial determination that [defendants] failed to establish that [Herrera] electronically signed the Contract.

• Campbell v. Sunshine Behavioral Health, LLCCourt of Appeal Case No. G062886, 4th Appellate District, Division 3, September 25, 2024

Division 3 of the Court of Appeal for the 4th Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s order that Defendant Company had waived the right to compel arbitration of former employee Plaintiff’s class claims. In its published opinion, the Court concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that Defendant’s conduct waived the right to arbitrate. Specifically, Defendant’s participation in litigation (including discovery), its eventual entrance into a joint stipulation to mediate, and its ultimate delay in filing its petition to compel arbitration were inconsistent with its claimed right to arbitrate. The Court also granted Plaintiff costs on appeal.

• Gutierrez Sancez, et al. v. River Valley Farms, LLC, et al.Court of Appeal Case No. H051472, 6th Appellate District, October 8, 2024

The Court of Appeal for the 6th Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s partial denial of Defendant Companies’ motion to compel arbitration of former employee Plaintiffs’ wage and hour claims spanning discrete periods of seasonal employment. The Court agreed that, while Plaintiffs were bound by arbitration agreements, these arbitration agreements only covered the season of employment during which they were executed, allowing Plaintiffs to continue to litigate their claims for the periods of employment during which they had not executed arbitration agreements.

FEDERAL APPELLATE WINS

• Adams v. West Marine Products, Inc.United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 20-15444, May 13, 2020

The Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order remanding former employee Plaintiff’s putative class action to state court after Defendant Company initially removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The three judge panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it chose to decline jurisdiction under the home state exception to CAFA, since the district court did not err in finding that it was more likely than not that greater than one-third of the putative class and the primary defendants were citizens of California.