Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, a former employee, brought a lawsuit against his employer alleging multiple claims of discrimination and harassment. The employer successfully moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement between the parties. During the arbitration, the arbitration provider issued an invoice for fees, which the employer attempted to pay electronically on the last day of the statutory 30-day deadline. However, due to a processing delay, the payment was not received by the provider until three days after the deadline.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County found that the employer’s failure to ensure the arbitration fees were received within the 30-day period constituted a material breach of the arbitration agreement under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98. The court vacated its prior order compelling arbitration, returned the case to court, and awarded the plaintiff $1,750 in sanctions for expenses incurred in bringing the motion. The plaintiff then sought over $300,000 in attorney fees and costs under section 1281.98, subdivision (c)(1), which allows recovery of all fees and costs associated with an abandoned arbitration. The trial court granted only a reduced amount, reasoning that the plaintiff was entitled only to fees and costs for work rendered useless by the termination of arbitration.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, considered the impact of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310. Hohenshelt held that federal law preempts a strict application of section 1281.98, and that forfeiture of arbitral rights occurs only if the failure to pay fees is willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent. The appellate court determined that the employer’s late payment was not willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees under section 1281.98, subdivision (c)(1). The order awarding attorney fees and costs was reversed. View "Wilson v. Tap Worldwide, LLC" on Justia Law

An adolescent female, who was continuously enrolled as a dependent under her mother’s Kaiser health care plans from 2005 to 2023, received gender-affirming medical care between the ages of 13 and 17. After experiencing negative outcomes and later detransitioning, she filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, The Permanente Medical Group, and several individual providers. The claims alleged that the care provided was not medically justified, that risks were not adequately disclosed, and that the providers failed to meet the standard of care in both treatment and informed consent.The Superior Court of San Joaquin County reviewed Kaiser’s petition to compel arbitration, which was based on arbitration provisions in the health plan documents. Kaiser argued that the plaintiff, as a dependent, was bound by arbitration agreements incorporated in the evidence of coverage and benefits booklets for both the union-based and self-funded plans. The trial court found that Kaiser failed to establish the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate, noting that the relevant documents referenced in the enrollment forms were not provided, and there was no evidence of the plaintiff or her mother expressly agreeing to the specific arbitration provisions Kaiser sought to enforce. The court denied the petition to compel arbitration and later denied Kaiser’s motion for reconsideration.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that Kaiser did not meet its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a valid and binding arbitration agreement covering the controversy. The court emphasized that mere enrollment and general references to arbitration were insufficient; the precise arbitration provision must be clearly incorporated and agreed to. The order denying the petition to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Brockman v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals" on Justia Law

Leslie Cruz made two purchases from the website operated by subsidiaries of Tapestry, Inc. in early 2024. She later filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, alleging that the companies engaged in unfair competition and false advertising by promoting misleading sales discounts. Cruz claimed that the advertised sale reductions were deceptive because the merchandise was rarely, if ever, sold at the full price listed, and sought restitution and disgorgement of unjust enrichment resulting from these practices.The defendants moved to compel arbitration, relying on an arbitration clause in their website’s Terms of Use. The checkout pages on the website included a line of gray, small-font text below the order submission button stating that by clicking, the user agreed to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, with hyperlinks to those documents. The trial court, after reviewing screenshots of the checkout pages, found that the notice of the arbitration agreement was not sufficiently conspicuous. The court emphasized that the notice was less prominent than other visual elements on the page and that the transaction did not create an expectation of an ongoing contractual relationship governed by extensive terms. The court concluded that Cruz had not assented to the arbitration agreement and denied the motion to compel arbitration.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo. It held that the defendants failed to provide reasonably sufficient notice to Cruz that clicking the order button would bind her to the Terms of Use, including the arbitration provision. The court found that the design of the checkout pages did not adequately call attention to the notice text, and affirmed the trial court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Cruz v. Tapestry" on Justia Law

An attorney, Morris S. Getzels, challenged the constitutional validity of State Bar Rule 2.30, which prevents inactive licensees from acting as private arbitrators and mediators. Getzels argued that this rule violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and California Constitutions by treating inactive licensees differently from others. He claimed that the rule impinges on the fundamental liberty of "freedom of contract" and that there is no rational basis for the rule.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained the State Bar's demurrer without leave to amend, leading to a judgment of dismissal. The court found that rational basis review was the appropriate standard for evaluating Getzels's equal protection claim. It concluded that funding the State Bar’s regulatory functions was a legitimate government purpose and that requiring licensees to pay the active membership fee was related to this purpose. The court determined that the State Bar had sufficiently articulated a rational basis for the disparate treatment of inactive licensees.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that rational basis review was the correct standard, as the rule did not involve a suspect class or a fundamental right. The court found that the State Bar had a legitimate interest in maintaining a competent bar and ensuring the professional conduct of its licensees. It concluded that Rule 2.30’s distinction between active and inactive licensees was rationally related to this goal, as inactive licensees acting as private arbitrators and mediators could burden the State Bar’s regulatory system. The court affirmed the judgment of dismissal, upholding the constitutionality of Rule 2.30. View "Getzels v. The State Bar of California" on Justia Law

Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. (CAG) filed two lawsuits under Proposition 65 against Walmart Inc. and Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC (collectively, Walmart), alleging that Walmart failed to warn consumers about products containing chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Michael Marcus, CAG’s Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, purchased the products online as a corporate agent for CAG. During the purchase process, Marcus agreed to Walmart’s Terms of Use, which included an arbitration clause.In the Alameda County Superior Court, Walmart filed petitions to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreement Marcus accepted. The trial court denied Walmart’s petitions, concluding that Walmart failed to prove the existence of an agreement to arbitrate Proposition 65 claims, as the arbitration agreement only addressed the rights of the individual consumer and did not preclude an action brought by the state.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that a plaintiff cannot be compelled to arbitrate a Proposition 65 claim against a seller of consumer products simply because an agent of the plaintiff previously agreed to arbitrate disputes with the seller when purchasing the products online. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s agent was not acting on behalf of the state, the real party in interest, when purchasing the products, and thus could not bind the state to arbitration. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court’s orders denying Walmart’s petitions to compel arbitration, as no agreement to arbitrate the Proposition 65 claims was formed. View "Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc." on Justia Law

Three former or current employees of Cross Country Staffing, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against their employer, alleging various labor law violations. Upon hiring, each plaintiff signed two agreements: an Arbitration Agreement mandating arbitration for all employment-related claims and an Employment Agreement that included provisions favoring the employer, such as non-compete clauses and the right to seek injunctive relief in court without posting a bond.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Cross Country Staffing's motion to compel arbitration, finding that the Arbitration Agreement, when read together with the Employment Agreement, was unconscionable. The court determined that the agreements were procedurally unconscionable due to their adhesive nature and substantively unconscionable because they unfairly favored the employer by allowing it to litigate its likely claims in court while forcing employees to arbitrate their likely claims. The court also noted the non-mutual attorney fees provisions and the employee's mandated concessions regarding injunctive relief.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the two agreements should be read together under Civil Code section 1642, as they were part of the same transaction and related to the same subject matter. The court found significant substantive unconscionability in the agreements' imbalance of arbitration obligations and the employer's access to court for its claims. The court also upheld the trial court's refusal to sever the unconscionable provisions, concluding that the agreements' unconscionability permeated the entire arbitration framework and that refusing to enforce the Arbitration Agreement served the interests of justice. View "Silva v. Cross Country Healthcare, Inc." on Justia Law

Monroe Operations, LLC, doing business as Newport Healthcare, hired Karla Velarde as a care coordinator and required her to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment. Velarde was later terminated and filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination, retaliation, and violation of whistleblower protections. Newport Healthcare and its director of residential services, Amanda Seymour, filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied. The court found that Velarde was pressured to sign the agreement, which she did not want to do, and that the agreement unlawfully prohibited her from seeking judicial review of an arbitration award.The Superior Court of Orange County ruled that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was presented as an adhesive contract buried among 31 documents that Velarde had to sign quickly while an HR manager waited. Additionally, Newport Healthcare's HR manager made false representations about the nature and terms of the agreement, which contradicted the written terms, rendering the agreement substantively unconscionable. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration based on these findings.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court found ample evidence of procedural unconscionability due to the pressure and misrepresentations made by Newport Healthcare. The court also found substantive unconscionability because the agreement did not conform to Velarde's reasonable expectations and placed her in a disadvantageous position. The appellate court concluded that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable and affirmed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Velarde v. Monroe Operations, LLC" on Justia Law

Respondent George Zeber filed a workers' compensation claim for cumulative injury sustained during his employment with the New York Yankees from 1968 to 1978. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found Zeber had a compensable injury but deferred any award pending further proceedings, including mandatory arbitration of the insurance coverage dispute. Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers) disputed the applicability of mandatory arbitration, arguing it only applies to injuries occurring on or after January 1, 1994, while Zeber's injury occurred no later than 1978.The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found Zeber sustained an injury during his employment but deferred findings on permanent disability and other issues. The WCJ also found the statute of limitations did not bar Zeber’s claim, as he only became aware of his right to file a claim in 2017 or 2018. The WCJ determined the New York Yankees had insurance coverage provided by Travelers and noted that disputes involving the right of contribution must be sent to arbitration. Travelers filed for reconsideration, which the WCAB partially granted, amending the WCJ’s decision to defer the insurance coverage issue to mandatory arbitration.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that section 5275, subdivision (a)(1) applies only to injuries occurring on or after January 1, 1990. The WCJ had not made a finding on the date of injury for purposes of section 5275. The court annulled the WCAB’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, including a determination of the date of injury for the purposes of mandatory arbitration. The court emphasized that the "date of injury" for cumulative injuries should be determined under section 5412, which considers when the employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was work-related. View "Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

Edgar Osuna sued Spectrum Security Services, Inc., alleging violations of the California Labor Code. He brought five individual and class claims, and a sixth representative claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The trial court dismissed Osuna’s class claims, sent his individual claims to arbitration, and sustained Spectrum’s demurrer to his PAGA claim without leave to amend. The court concluded that Osuna lacked standing to bring the PAGA claim because he did not suffer a Labor Code violation within the one-year statute of limitations for recovering civil penalties.The trial court’s decision was based on the interpretation that Osuna needed to have suffered a violation within the one-year period before filing his PAGA notice. Osuna appealed, arguing that he is an aggrieved employee with standing to assert a representative PAGA claim because he suffered Labor Code violations during his employment with Spectrum.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the standing requirements under PAGA. The appellate court held that to have standing under PAGA, an employee must have been employed by the alleged violator and suffered at least one Labor Code violation, regardless of whether the violation occurred within the one-year statute of limitations for recovering civil penalties. The court emphasized that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and does not affect standing.The appellate court reversed the portion of the trial court’s order sustaining Spectrum’s demurrer to Osuna’s representative PAGA claim and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Osuna v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Mone Yvette Sanders filed a class and representative action against her former employer, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., alleging wage and hour claims under the Labor Code and a cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The trial court granted Edward Jones’s motions to compel arbitration of Sanders’s individual Labor Code and PAGA claims and stayed the representative PAGA cause of action pending arbitration. Sanders initiated arbitration, but Edward Jones failed to pay $54,000 in fees within 30 days as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98. Sanders then moved to vacate the order compelling arbitration and proceed in court.The trial court initially granted Sanders’s motion, finding section 1281.98 was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). However, after Edward Jones submitted new authority, the court reconsidered and denied Sanders’s motion, concluding section 1281.98 was preempted by the FAA. Sanders filed a petition for writ of mandate.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court held that section 1281.98, which allows an employee to withdraw from arbitration if the employer fails to pay fees within 30 days, is not preempted by the FAA. The court found that section 1281.98 furthers the FAA’s goal of expeditious arbitration and does not undermine the FAA’s objectives. The court also determined that the trial court, not the arbitrator, should decide whether there has been a default under section 1281.98.The Court of Appeal granted Sanders’s petition for writ of mandate, directing the trial court to vacate its order denying Sanders’s motion to withdraw from arbitration and allowing her to pursue her claims in court. The trial court was also instructed to consider Sanders’s motion for sanctions under section 1281.99. View "Sanders v. Superior Court" on Justia Law