©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2023 Cal-Peculiarities | 133 “Theft of labor.” The Court of Appeal has rejected a novel claim that an employer’s failure to pay commissions amounts to stealing property, in violation of the Penal Code.565 1 Grafton Partners v. Superior Court (PricewaterhouseCoopers), 36 Cal. 4th 944 (2005). But see Woodside Homes of California, Inc. v. Superior Court (Wheeler), 142 Cal. App. 4th 99 (2006) (enforcing contract clause that any controversy arising under contract shall be submitted to general judicial reference). 2 Grafton Partners, 36 Cal. 4th at 968 (Chin, J., concurring). 3 Id. at 970. 4 See, e.g., Hodge v. Superior Court (Aon Insurance Servs.), 145 Cal. App. 4th 278, 284-85 (2006) (because claim for violation of the UCL is equitable in nature, no right to a jury trial exists). 5 See, e.g., Pellegrino v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc., 181 Cal. App. 4th 713, 737-38 (2010) (equitable issues could be tried first to the judge alone and a bench trial of the equitable issues could dispense with the legal issues and end the case). 6 ATT Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011). 7 Code Civ. Proc. § 1280 et seq. 8 OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, 8 Cal. 5th 111, 125 (2019) (citations omitted). 9 9 U.S.C. § 1. 10 Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 119 (2001). 11 Muller v. Roy Miller Freight Lines, LLC, 34 Cal. App. 5th 1056, 1069 (2019) (truck driver who drove intrastate portion of interstate trips for transportation company was engaged in interstate commerce and thus FAA-exempt, because company’s goods originated primarily outside of California); Nieto v. Fresno Beverage Co., 33 Cal. App. 5th 274, 284 (2019) (intrastate delivery driver was FAA-exempt because he “was engaged in interstate commerce through his participation in the continuation of the movement of interstate goods to their destinations”). 12 Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 142 S. Ct. 1783, 1790 (2022). 13 Id. 14 9 U.S.C. § 2. 15 Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies, Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 266 (1995). 16 Lab. Code § 229 (“Actions to enforce the provisions of this article for the collection of due and unpaid wages claimed by an individual may be maintained without regard to the existence of any private agreement to arbitrate.”). 17 Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 489-90 (1987). 18 Lane v. Francis Capital Mgmt. LLC, 224 Cal. App. 4th 676 (2014) (plaintiff could proceed to trial on wage claim because employer, in moving to compel arbitration, did not show that the relevant transaction was in interstate commerce). 19 E.g., New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532, 541 (2019) (interstate trucking company sued by truck driver for misclassifying him as an independent contractor could not invoke the FAA to enforce the parties’ arbitration agreement, because the FAA Section 1 exclusion for “contracts of employment of … [transportation] workers engaged in … interstate commerce” is broad enough to embrace independent contractors). See also Muller v. Roy Miller Freight Lines LLC, 34 Cal. App. 5th 1056 (2019) (applying section 229 of the Labor Code to defeat employer’s effort to enforce arbitration agreement as to claims for unpaid wages, because the FAA Section 1 exclusion applies to truck drivers who transport goods that mostly originate outside California, even if plaintiffs transported the goods solely within California); Nieto v. Fresno Beverage Co., 33 Cal. App. 5th 274 (2019) (same as to delivery driver transporting beer and other beverages manufactured outside of California and then stored in defendant’s California warehouse before transport; although plaintiff did not drive across state lines, he transported goods in stream of interstate commerce after short pause in California and thus was a transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce). 20 Bravo v. RADC Enters., Inc., 33 Cal. App. 5th 920, 923 (2019) (“The choice-of-law provision becomes consistent with the parties’ intent to arbitrate all disputes when we read ‘the laws of the State of California’ to include substantive principles California courts would apply, but to exclude special rules limiting the authority of arbitrators.”) (emphasis in original). 21 Civ. Code § 51.7 (“Ralph Civil Rights Act”) (entitling persons “to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property” because of race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or position in a labor dispute). 22 Civ. Code § 52.1 (“Tom Bane Civil Rights Act”) (providing right of action “if a person interferes … or attempts to interfere, by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment of … rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States”). 23 Civ. Code §§ 51.7(c)(3), 52.1. 24 Saheli v. White Mem’l Med. Ctr., 21 Cal. App. 5th 308, 323 (2018) (FAA preempts any state rule discriminating on its face against arbitration). 25 Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Bonta, 62 F.4th 473 (9th Cir. 2023). 26 Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1,10 (1984). 27 Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 490-91 (1987) (FAA preempts California Labor Code section 229, banning arbitration of wage claims, so plaintiff must abide by agreement to arbitrate pursuant to a Form U-4 agreement). Section 229 remains in the Labor Code. 28 Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346, 353-54 (2008).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4