Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver for TBS, a “last-mile” delivery company whose primary client was Amazon.com. At the start of his employment, he signed an At-Will Employment, Non-Disclosure, Non-Solicitation, Class-Action Waiver and Arbitration Agreement. Plaintiff filed suit asserting violations of the Labor Code, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and the Private Attorneys General Act, unlawful retaliation, and wrongful termination. The trial court denied TBS’s motion to compel the plaintiff to arbitrate his individual claims and to dismiss his class claims. The court found that the plaintiff was exempt from Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. 1, FAA) coverage because he was a transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce and that the class action waiver was unenforceable, rendering the arbitration agreement unenforceable.The court of appeal affirmed that the plaintiff is exempt from FAA coverage and that the class action waiver is unenforceable under California law. The court reversed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s individual claims; the trial court improperly found the arbitration agreement unenforceable in its entirety rather than severing the class action waiver provision from the remainder of the employment agreement and considering the validity of the arbitration provision with respect to the individual claims for unlawful retaliation and wrongful termination. View "Betancourt v. Transportation Brokerage Specialists, Inc." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award against appellants and in favor of respondents in a contract dispute. The arbitrator partially rescinded the contract after finding Appellant Shumway provided legal services without an active license.The court concluded that the trial court was not required to independently review the legality of the 2016 and 2017 agreements at issue; the award does not violate public policy or appellants' statutory rights; the arbitrator did not exceed his powers by finding Shumway engaged in the unlicensed practice of law; the arbitrator did not exceed his powers by ruling that Shumway is personally liable for the award; and the arbitrator did not engage in misconduct. The court declined to impose sanctions against appellants for filing a frivolous appeal and denied without prejudice respondents' request for attorney fees on appeal. View "Bacall v. Shumway" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order denying Altamed's motion to compel arbitration of respondent's claims. The court held that the arbitration agreement is valid where respondent knowingly waived her right to a jury trial and the signature of Altamed's CEO was not required on the arbitration agreement. The court also held that any unconscionability in the arbitration agreement does not provide grounds for revocation or non-enforcement. Rather, the provision giving rising to substantive unconscionability is severable. In this case, the second review provision appears entirely severable from the remainder of the agreement and removing it would remove the only instance of substantive unconscionability. Furthermore, the arbitration agreement contains a severability provision. Therefore, the court ordered the provision severed. View "Cisneros Alvarez v. Altamed Health Services Corp." on Justia Law

A Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) plaintiff may not be compelled to arbitrate whether he or she is an aggrieved employee. Petitioners filed suit against Zum under PAGA, alleging that Zum misclassified them and others as independent contractors and thus violated multiple provisions of the California Labor Code. The trial court granted Zum's motion to compel arbitration and ordered into arbitration the issue of arbitrability of petitioners' suit.The Court of Appeal reversed the order compelling arbitration, concluding that the delegation of the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator frustrates the purpose of PAGA and is therefore prohibited under California law. The court explained that the California Supreme Court in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, and several Courts of Appeal are uniform in holding that PAGA claims are not waivable and are not arbitrable. Furthermore, under that case law and in light of the very nature of a PAGA claim, a court – not an arbitrator – must decide all aspects of the claim. The court further explained that the only exception is when the state, as real party in interest, has consented to arbitration. However, the state did not consent here. The court concluded that the "preliminary" question of whether petitioners are "aggrieved employees" under PAGA may not be decided in private party arbitration. View "Contreras v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed a judgment confirming an arbitration award removing the managing director of two corporations, owned by Ted and his brother Harry Roussos as cotrustees of two trusts, and appointing the director proposed by Harry. The court concluded that the parties cannot contract away California's statutory protections for parties to an arbitration, including mandatory disqualification of a proposed arbitrator upon a timely demand. The court explained that the arbitrator was still a "proposed neutral arbitrator" for the present arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.9 and 1281.91, and under section 1281.91, subdivision (b)(1), the arbitrator was required to disqualify himself upon Ted's timely service of a notice of disqualification. In this case, as the proposed neutral arbitrator, Judge Shook was legally required to make the disclosures set forth in his disclosure report, and Ted had an absolute right to disqualify him without cause. Because the arbitrator refused to disqualify himself, the trial court was required to vacate the award under section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(6)(B). The court remanded with instructions for the trial court to vacate its order granting the petition to confirm the arbitration award, and to enter a new order vacating the award. View "Roussos v. Roussos" on Justia Law

Putnam purchased a service-only (satellite) Subaru facility in San Francisco. Putnam entered into a temporary “Dealer Candidate Satellite Service Facility Agreement.” Subaru and Putnam subsequently executed a Subaru Dealer Agreement for the sale and service of vehicles at a Burlingame dealership and a five-year (renewable) Satellite Service Facility Agreement, which contained an arbitration provision. In 2017, Subaru stated that it would not approve Putnam’s proposed relocation of the satellite facility and would not renew the Satellite Agreement in 2019. Putnam filed protests with the New Motor Vehicle Board. Subaru moved to compel arbitration.The trial court found that the Satellite Agreement did not come within the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act, an exception to the Federal Arbitration Act. Putnam was compelled to arbitrate claims arising from that agreement. The court denied Subaru’s request to compel Putnam to dismiss its Board protests, which were stayed pending arbitration. An arbitrator found that the Satellite Agreement was a franchise, that Subaru was required to show good cause, and that Subaru had established good cause for terminating the Satellite Agreement.The court of appeal affirmed the confirmation of the arbitration award, rejecting arguments that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to make a good cause determination; enforcement of the arbitration provision was illegal under the Vehicle Code; public policy underlying California’s New Motor Vehicle Board Act precluded the arbitrator from making a good cause determination; and that Putnam’s due process rights were violated when Subaru failed to provide the required notice of the reasons for termination. View "Subaru of America, Inc. v. Putnam Automotive, Inc." on Justia Law

In a putative class action, plaintiffs Joe Maldonado, Alfredo Mendez, J. Peter Tuma, Jonabette Michelle Tuma, and Roberto Mateos Salmeron (collectively referred to as “the Customers”), claimed Fast Auto Loans, Inc., (Lender) charged unconscionable interest rates on loans in violation of California Financial Code sections 22302 and 22303. Lender filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pursuant to an arbitration clause contained within the Customers’ loan agreements. The court denied the motion on the grounds the provision was invalid and unenforceable because it required consumers to waive their right to pursue public injunctive relief, a rule described in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal.5th 945 (2017). On appeal, Lender argued the “McGill Rule” did not apply, but even if it did, other claims were subject to arbitration. Alternatively, Lender contended the McGill Rule was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act . Finding Lender’s contentions on appeal lacked merit, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order. View "Maldonado v. Fast Auto Loans" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of Altamed's motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's employment-related claims. The court concluded that the trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration. The court explained that the arbitration agreement is valid where plaintiff knowingly waived her right to a jury trial and the signature of Altamed's CEO was not required on the arbitration agreement. The court also concluded that any unconscionability in the arbitration agreement does not provide grounds for revocation or non-enforcement. However, the court concluded that the second review provision appears entirely severable from the remainder of the agreement and removing it would remove the only instance of substantive unconscionability. Therefore, the court ordered Paragraph 5 authorizing review by a second arbitrator severed, and remanded for the trial court to enter an order granting the motion to arbitrate. View "Cisneros Alvarez v. Altamed Health Services Corp." on Justia Law

Daniel and Indiana Cabatit entered into a solar power lease agreement (the agreement) with Sunnova Energy Corporation. After a solar power system was installed on the Cabatits’ residence, the Cabatits sued Sunnova, alleging damage to their roof. Sunnova moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the agreement, but the trial court found the arbitration clause unconscionable and denied the motion. On appeal, Sunnova contended: (1) the arbitration clause required the Cabatits to submit to an arbitrator the question whether the clause was enforceable; (2) the trial court erred in finding the arbitration clause unconscionable, and (3) despite the trial court’s conclusion to the contrary, the rule announced in McGill v. Citibank, N.A. 2 Cal.5th 945 (2017), did not apply to the circumstances of this case. The Court of Appeal determined: (1) Sunnova did not raise at trial the issue of whether the arbitration clause was itself had to be decided by an arbitration, thus not addressed on appeal; (2) the arbitration clause was procedurally and substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable, and (3) the Court did not consider whether the McGill rule applied here because general considerations of unconscionability, independent of the McGill rule, supported the trial court’s determination. Thus, the Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Sunnova's motion to compel arbitration. View "Cabatit v. Sunnova Energy Corporation" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying defendant's motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that defendant waived its right to arbitrate. The court rejected defendant's contention that it was reasonable to wait until it located the executed arbitration agreements before filing its motion, particularly in light of its concession that at the outset of the litigation, it was not only aware of its policy requiring arbitration, but had located checklists that demonstrated both plaintiffs had received a copy of the arbitration agreement. Furthermore, substantial evidence supported a finding that the length of defendant's delay prior to filing its motion to compel arbitration and for a stay was unreasonable.The court also held that defendant acted in a manner inconsistent with its right to arbitrate. The court explained that, although defendant initially asserted arbitration as an affirmative defense, it subsequently represented in two status conference statements that it did not intend to arbitrate. The court explained that defendant's conduct related to classwide issues was inconsistent with its claimed right to arbitrate individual claims and strongly supported the trial court's finding that defendant acted in a manner inconsistent with its right to arbitrate. The court also concluded that substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that defendant continued to act in a manner inconsistent with arbitration even after it located the arbitration agreements in June 2018. Finally, substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding of prejudice where defendant's delay impaired plaintiffs' ability to realize the benefits and efficiencies of arbitration. View "Garcia v. Haralambos Beverage Co." on Justia Law