The California Supreme Court And SCOTUS Disagree About Waiver Of The Right To Arbitrate.
In Quach v. Cal. Commerce Club, B310458 (2/1 5/10/22 ) (Bendix, Rothschild; Crandall sitting by designation, conc. and dsst.), Justice Bendix, writing the majority opinion, explained that California Commerce Club had not waived its right to arbitrate, despite the fact that it knew from the time it filed its answer of its right to arbitrate, despite substantial delay, and despite engaging in litigation conduct inconsistent with arbitrate. Because? Because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice, having admitted he expended no costs in litigation he would not have expended had the case gone to arbitration earlier. Under St. Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare of California, 31 Cal.4th 1187, 1203 (2003) (St. Agnes Medical Center), prejudice is part of a multi-factor test used to establish waiver of the right to arbitrate, and spending money in litigation is not enough to establish prejudice.
Superior Court Judge Crandall concurred in part, agreeing that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable, but he would have found prejudice based on the defendant's litigation conduct inconsistent with the right to arbitrate, knowledge of its right to arbitrate, and delay. He also pointed out that California courts have not applied a mechanical test to waiver, and have sometimes found great delay to result in prejudice. He did not believe that, under the circumstances, the plaintiff had to explain prejudice, and yet Crandall's dissent seems somewhat caught up in the straightjacket of having to rely on the finding of prejudice, based on California case law, in order to establish waiver. As my comment below explains, SCOTUS has now rejected a finding of prejudice as a necessary element in a waiver of the right to arbitrate.
"The unfairness of compelling non-unionized employees to forfeit their access to the civil justice system in favor of private arbitration is well recognized," write Crandall. He considers this "water under the bridge", but he would not extend mandatory arbitration for the benefit of the employer in a situation where he believes there has been a clear waiver of the right to arbitrate.
COMMENT: In St. Agnes Medical Center, the California Supreme Court wrote: "More than two decades ago, we observed that '[u]nder federal law, it is clear that the mere filing of a lawsuit does not waive contractual arbitration rights. The presence or absence of prejudice from the litigation of the dispute is the determinative issue under federal law.'" That was then; this is now. Under Morgan v. Sundance [see my 5/24/22 post], decided this year, SCOTUS does not require a showing of prejudice to establish waiver of the right to arbitrate. Instead, SCOTUS places arbitration contracts on the same footing as other contracts. And the traditional test for waiver of a contractual right is intentional relinquishment of a known right. Presumably this could be established by showing that a party knew it had a right to arbitrate and acted inconsistently with its right to arbitrate by engaging in litigation. Adding "prejudice" as an element of waiver places arbitration agreements on a different footing than other contracts. Why should the rule in California be different than the rule established by SCOTUS? Of course, where California law applies, our appellate courts follow the California Supreme Court. But why should California's rule be different than SCOTUS's rule?
One might argue that adding the element of prejudice makes it harder to establish waiver, and thus harder to lose the right to arbitrate, and California wishes to encourage arbitration. But SCOTUS addressed this type of argument, and in the context of the Federal Arbitration Act, determined in an 9-0 decision penned by Justice Kagan, that the desire to promote arbitration should not trump the fundamental rule that arbitration agreements should be put on the same footing as other contracts. Perhaps it is time for the California Supreme Court to reconsider the rules governing waiver of the right to arbitrate.
UPDATE: We have an article in the June 10, 2022 online edition of the Daily Journal entitled, "The United States and the California Supreme Courts are not on the same page." The article is about waiver of the right to arbitrate.
Comments