Law Of The Case Allows Court To Duck More Interesting Issues Concerning Arbitrability Of PAGA And UCL Claims
Lewis v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., Case No. B239912 (2nd Dist. Div. 5 January 15, 2013) (Turner, P.J., author) (unpublished), involved the second appeal from the trial court’s refusal to enforce an arbitration agreement between employee plaintiffs and employer 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. The first time around, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying the employer’s motion to compel arbitration.
On remand from the first appeal, the trial court severed Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claims from the arbitration, and once again, the employer appealed, leading to the present decision.
The second time around, plaintiffs/employees found themselves impaled by the law of the case doctrine: “’[t]he decision of an appellate court, stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case, conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in a subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case.’” Morohoshi v. Pacific Home, 34 Cal.4th 482, 491 (2004). And the first time around, the Court of Appeal’s opinion adjudicated the arbitrability of plaintiffs claims under the PAGA and UCL Law. Plaintiffs never raised the issue of the arbitrability of “any individual cause of action” and thus forfeited that issue on the first appeal. The ruling in the first appeal became the law of the case, leading to reversal of the trial court’s later order seeking to sever the PAGA and UCL claims from arbitration. Thus, the Court of Appeal avoided the substantive issues concerning arbitrability of PAGA and UCL claims.
Comments