Issues Covered Include Class Action, Unconscionability, Powers Of Arbitrator, Enforcement, Non-Signatories, PAGA, Severability, Costs.
Martinez v. Ready Pac Produce, Inc., B279225 (2/3 11/20/18) (Lavin, Egerton, Dhanidina) (Unpublished): Waiver Of Class Action Meant Employee Could Not Participate In Pending Class Action.
The Court of Appeal reverses order denying employer Read Pac's motion to compel arbitration. The superior court had found the arbitration agreement to be unconscionable because it included a provision waiving the right to participate in a class action, including a pending class action. Relying on Concepcion, the Court of Appeal stated, "It is well settled that class action waivers in arbitration agreements are generally enforceable." While the employee lost the right to participate in a pending class action, the employee still had the right to pursue her individual claims in arbitration.
O'Brien v. Sajahtera, Inc., B282037 (2/3 11/20/18) (Lavin, Egerton, Dhanidina) (Unpublished): Arbitrator Did Not Exceed Powers.
The Court of Appeal affirms judgment entered after the superior court denied the plaintiff employee's petition to vacate an arbitration award in favor of defendant.
Plaintiff/appellant argued that the arbitrator had violated unwaivable statutory rights -- something that would in fact be a basis for vacating an arbitrator's award. The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed, explaining plaintiff "improperly equates the violation of unwaivable statutory rights -- which may support vacatur of an arbitration award -- with an unfavorable resolution of a claim relating to unwaivable statutory right -- which does not."
Albarran v. Midwest Roofing Co., Inc., B284151 (2/1 11/19/18) (Bendix, Rothschild, Johnson) (Unpublished): Court Reverses And Orders Arbitration, Except For PAGA Claim.
The Court of Appeal rejected trial court's finding that arbitration agreement was unconscionable because it lacked mutuality (a) because it was not signed by defendants; and (b) because it only required employees to arbitrate their claims. Generally an agreement can be enforced when signed by the parties against whom enforcement is sought. As to the claim that the agreement was not mutual, the Court explained that the employee' agreement to arbitrate is read as mutual under existing case law. The Court added two caveats: first, certain of the cost-shifting provisions, which were unconscionable, had to be severed; second, the arbitration agreement did not apply to PAGA claims brought in the state's name.
Comments