Split Between State And Federal Blanket Enforcement Of Arbitration Agreements Far From Resolved
The February 19, 2015 issue of the Los Angeles Daily Journal includes an article by John Roemer entitled “9th Circuit to test arbitration ruling.” This “test” concerns the California Supreme Court’s holding in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014) that PAGA claims cannot be forced into arbitration, because the real dispute is between the employer and the State of California, and the State is not a party to the arbitration agreement, though the employee acts as a private attorney general for the State.
Mr. Roemer points out that the issue is now teed up for the 9th Circuit to address, citing to Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc., 13-55184, and Sierra v. Oakley Sales Corp., 13-55891.
Meanwhile, the California state courts have been following Iskanian, as they must. See, e.g., Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., B232583 (2/1 Feb. 26, 2015) (Chaney, Rothschild, Johnson) (certified for publication) (holding rulings in Concepcion and Iskanian require reversal and remand to trial court of orders denying employer’s petition for arbitraiton, while preserving employee’s rights to prosecute PAGA claims in a non-arbitration forum).
The issue is far from resolved, as the California courts are bound to follow the California Supreme Court, not the Ninth Circuit.
Comments