Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under federal laws, alleging that he was wrongfully terminated. On appeal, defendants challenge the trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded that the undisputed facts demonstrate that there is a valid arbitration agreement; the agreement to arbitrate is not illusory; and, as discussed in the unpublished part of the court's opinion, the arbitration agreement is not unconscionable to the degree that it is unenforceable. Accordingly, the court reversed the order compelling arbitration. View "Harris v. TAP Worldwide" on Justia Law

Defendants seek to enforce three arbitration agreements signed by the decedent, Kenisha Parker, against plaintiffs, who are her relatives. Plaintiffs filed suit for wrongful death, medical malpractice, and survivorship after Kenisha died after undergoing lipoplasty and suction lipectemy. The court concluded that the three arbitration agreements are subject to limited preemptive effect of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq.; the 30-day rescission right in Code of Civil Procedure section 1295, subdivision (c) is preempted by the FAA; and thus the motions to compel arbitration should have been granted. Accordingly, the court reversed the order denying defendants' motion to compel arbitration. View "Scott v. Yoho" on Justia Law

William E. Rice and others filed suit against Attorney Gary P. Downs for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of a written agreement Downs drafted to govern a limited liability corporation he formed with Rice and others. Both parties appealed after arbitration. The court concluded that Rice’s malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and rescission claims do not arise out of the operating agreements. Accordingly, the court reversed with respect to the court’s order compelling arbitration of Rice’s legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and rescission causes of action and otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Rice v. Downs" on Justia Law

Attorney Baxter and his former clients, the Bocks, participated in arbitration under the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, 6200), stipulating to be bound by the result. In his decision, the arbitrator concluded the services provided by Baxter should be valued at the amount already paid by the Bocks and awarded Baxter nothing. The parties acknowledge that the arbitrator erred in stating the amount of fees paid by the Bocks. When the error was brought to his attention, the arbitrator declined to correct his award. Later, Baxter discovered the arbitrator was in the business of auditing attorney bills and had written extensively about attorney overbilling. Baxter argued unsuccessfully that the arbitration award should be vacated because the arbitrator erred in stating the amount paid and failed to disclose matters relating to bias. The court of appeal affirmed confirmation of the arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator was not obligated to disclose the nature of his practice and that Baxter was not prejudiced by the arbitrator’s handling of the evidence. The amount of the court’s award of attorney fees to the Bocks was vacated and remanded to the for reconsideration of a lodestar compensation rate assigned to an attorney. View "Baxter v. Bock" on Justia Law

After plaintiff filed suit against defendants for wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation, defendants petitioned to compel arbitration pursuant to plaintiff's employment agreement and associated documents. The trial court denied the petition. The court concluded that the trial court erroneously excluded a supplemental declaration as untimely. Because defendants were not required to establish the authenticity of plaintiff's signature on the Dispute Resolution Procedure (DRP) until challenged by plaintiff in his opposition, they were not required to file the supplemental declaration pursuant to the deadline set by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b) for a party’s moving papers. The court also concluded that the declaration established the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Espejo v. So. CA Permanente Med. Group" on Justia Law

Ling's employment as a Monterey restaurant manager was terminated. Her position was classified as exempt under Industrial Wage Order 5-2001(1)(B)(1), from overtime compensation and mandated meal periods. Ling sued, seeking unpaid overtime wages, waiting time penalties, and premium pay for failure to provide meal and rest periods; she alleged unfair competition and sought attorney‘s fees and costs. An arbitrator rejected Ling’s claim that she was wrongly classified and her contention that chronic staffing shortages required her to spend time performing nonexempt hourly work. Based on nine weeks when she attended training, Ling was compensated $1,038 for missed meal periods and $7,668 in waiting time penalties. The arbitrator deemed employer the prevailing party on all but that minor issue, awarded employer $29,046 in costs and $212,685 in attorney‘s fees based on the dominant contention of erroneous classification.The court corrected and remanded. The court of appeal agreed that the arbitrator exceeded his power by awarding statutory attorney‘s fees to an employer for work performed in defeating inextricably intertwined claims, contrary to public policy embedded in the Labor Code‘s one-way fee shifting provision. The court upheld the trial court‘s remedy and subsequent order confirming an award to plaintiff of costs but not attorney‘s fees based on intervening California Supreme Court authority. View "Ling v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a putative class of California consumers who purchased flower arrangements through Provide's website, ProFlowers.com, filed suit alleging consumer fraud claims. On appeal, Provide challenges the trial court's order denying its petition to compel arbitration. The Terms of Use on ProFlowers.com fall into a category of Internet contracts commonly referred to as “browsewrap” agreements. Plaintiff opposed the petition to compel arbitration on the ground that he was never prompted to assent to the Terms of Use, nor did he actually read them, prior to placing his order on ProFlowers.com. The court found that the hyperlinks and the overall design of the ProFlowers.com website would not have put a reasonably prudent Internet user on notice of Provide’s Terms of Use, and Plaintiff therefore did not unambiguously assent to the subject arbitration provision simply by placing an order on ProFlowers.com. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Long v. Provide Commerce, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant CWPSC, Inc. (CW Painting) appealed a trial court order denying its motion to compel its former employee, plaintiff-respondent Martha Carbajal, to arbitrate her wage and hour claims under the arbitration provision in her employment agreement. The trial court denied the motion because it found the arbitration provision was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. After review, the Court of Appeal found: (1) the arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable because it was part of an adhesion contract CW Painting imposed on Carbajal as a term of her employment; (2) the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable because it allowed CW Painting to obtain injunctive relief in court while requiring Carbajal to seek relief through arbitration, it waives the statutory requirement that CW Painting post a bond or undertaking to obtain injunctive relief, and it effectively waives Carbajal’s statutory right to recover her attorney fees if she prevailed on her Labor Code claims; and (3) pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, the party asserting the FAA bore the burden to show it applied by presenting evidence establishing the contract with the arbitration provision has a substantial relationship to interstate commerce, and CW Painting failed to timely present such evidence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s order. View "Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc." on Justia Law

The Arbitration Certification Program (ACP) certifies the qualified dispute resolution process identified in the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civil Code 1790, the “lemon law.” Not all automobile manufacturers must have an ACP certified program. Those manufacturers who choose to operate a certified arbitration process have limited lemon law liability. Plaintiffs bought new cars that were under the original manufacturers’ warranties when they sought declaratory relief claiming that public statements in ACP publications were illegal underground regulations not adopted in conformity with California’s Administrative Procedures Act, because the ACP states that car manufacturers may adjust the price of a defective vehicle to be repurchased from its owner as a lemon for excessive wear and tear and that it is not within an arbitrator’s purview to make such an adjustment. The court concluded plaintiffs were interested persons under Government Code 11350 and denied a motion to dismiss. The court of appeal vacated. Plaintiffs may not invoke the doctrine of public interest standing, and their individual interests in the controversy are too conjectural to confer standing to bring an action for declaratory relief. View "CA Dep't. Consumer Affairs v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Remax and Jose Garcia-Yanez, alleging 13 causes of action related to her employment. The trial court granted Remax's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the litigation in the judicial forum under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4. The arbitration provider subsequently dismissed the arbitral proceeding after no arbitration costs were paid. Plaintiff then moved that the trial court lift its prior order staying the litigation and defendants filed no contemporary motion or petition seeking an order compelling resumption of the arbitration proceeding. Therefore, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion and lifted the litigation stay. Defendants then appealed the order lifting the litigation stay. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that defendants are appealing from a nonappealable order. View "Gastelum v. Remax Int'l" on Justia Law