136 | 2024 Cal-Peculiarities ©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 83 Conyer v. Hula Media Servs., 482 P.3d 988 (Mar. 25, 2021) (dismissing matter as moot). 84 Martinez v. BaronHR, Inc., 51 Cal. App. 5th 962, 967-68 (2020). 85 Id. at 969-70. 86 Esparza v. Sand & Sea, Inc., 2 Cal. App. 5th 781, 787 (2016) (citations omitted). 87 Id. at 789. 88 Mitri v. Arnel Mgmt. Co., 157 Cal. App. 4th 1164, 1170-71 (2007). See Gorlach v. Sports Club Co., 209 Cal. App. 4th 1497, 1509 (2012) (declining to enforce handbook arbitration clause because handbook told employees they must sign an arbitration agreement, “implying that it was not effective until (and unless) they did so. Because Gorlach never signed the arbitration agreement, we cannot imply the existence of such an agreement between the parties.”). 89 Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Grp., Inc., 232 Cal. App. 4th 836, 842 (2014) (affirming order denying petition to compel arbitration where employer did not present enough evidence to show that employee’s electronic signature on the arbitration agreement was in fact the “act of” the employee). 90 Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem’l Hosp., 8 Cal. App. 5th 236 (2017). 91 Garner v. Inter-State Oil Co., 52 Cal. App. 5th 619, 624 (2020). 92 Diaz v. Sohnen Enters., 34 Cal. App. 5th 126 (2019) (when an at-will employee continues employment after notification that an agreement to arbitrate is a condition of continued employment, the employee impliedly consents to the arbitration agreement). 93 Coughenour v. Del Taco, LLC, 57 Cal. App. 5th 740 (2020). 94 Jarboe v. Hanlees Auto Grp., 53 Cal. App. 5th 539, 550-51 (2020). 95 Id. at 554 (“These boilerplate allegations are not sufficient to support defendants’ equitable estoppel claim. … The defendants have not admitted that they are ‘joint employer[s]’ nor have they provided any evidence that shows a joint employment relationship with Jarboe.”). 96 Id. at 557. 97 Franco v. Greystone Ridge Condominium, 39 Cal. App. 5th 221, 223-24 (2019). 98 Fleming Distribution Co. v. Younan, 49 Cal. App. 5th 73 (2020). 99 AB 51, 2019 bill adding Lab. Code § 432.6 and Gov’t Code § 12953. 100 Chamber of Com. of the United States v. Becerra, 438 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). 101 Chamber of Com. of the United States v. Bonta, 62 F.4th 473 (9th Cir. 2023). 102 SB 707, 2019 bill amending Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1280, 1281.96, and adding Civ. Code §§ 1281.97, 1281.98, 1281.99. Newly amended section 1281.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure will require arbitration providers to report publicly a large array of information on each arbitration within the last five years, including the identity of the nonconsumer party, the nature of the dispute, who won the arbitration, how often the nonconsumer party has been a party to arbitration, the name of the consumer party’s attorney, and the name of the arbitrator. The arbitration provider must also report, in the aggregate, the ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation of all its arbitrators, as self-reported by the arbitrators. 103 Gentry v. Sup. Court (Circuit City Stores, Inc.), 42 Cal. 4th 443, 450 (2007). 104 AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011). 105 Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348, 364 (2014) (“Concepcion holds that even if a class waiver is exculpatory in a particular case, it is nonetheless preempted by the FAA. Under the logic of Concepcion, the FAA preempts Gentry’s rule against employment class waivers.”) (emphasis in original). 106 Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). 107 Lamps Plus v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407, 1412-13 (2019). 108 1 Cal. 5th 233 (2016). 109 Id. 110 Id. at 244. 111 Id. at 245-48. 112 Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 197 Cal. App. 4th 489, 502-03 (2011) (PAGA is a mechanism by which the state itself can enforce state labor laws, and a PAGA plaintiff is a state proxy or agent and so the state should be unaffected by a private agreement to arbitrate). Brown relied on Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans, 21 Cal. 4th 1066 (1999) (claims for injunctive relief under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act are not arbitrable), Cruz v. PacifCare Health Sys., Inc., 30 Cal. 4th 303 (2003) (claims for injunctive relief under the UCL are not arbitrable), and Franco v. Athens Disposal Co., 171 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1303 (2009) (PAGA waiver in arbitration agreement invalid because it impedes comprehensive enforcement of the Labor Code). Disagreeing with that view was the Court of Appeal decision that the California Supreme Court reviewed in 2014: Iskanian v. CLS Transp., 206 Cal. App. 4th 949 (2012) (disagreeing with Brown: “[W]e disagree with the majority’s holding in Brown. We recognize that the PAGA serves to benefit the public and that private attorney general laws may be severely undercut by application of the FAA. But we believe that the United States Supreme Court has spoken on the issue, and we are required to follow its binding authority.”), judgment rev’d, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (June 23, 2014), review granted, No. S204032 (Cal. Sept. 19, 2012). 113 Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348, 366 (2014) (“Concepcion held that the FAA does prevent states from mandating or promoting procedures incompatible with arbitration. The Gentry rule runs afoul of this latter principle. We thus conclude in light of Concepcion that the FAA preempts the Gentry rule.”).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4