Arbitration Clause

Disagreeing with Garcia v. Expert Staffing West (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 408, this decision holds that a joint employer cannot enforce the arbitration clause in a temporary staffing agency's agreement with the worker that the joint employer hired through the agency--at least when, as in this case, the worker sues only the joint employer and solely for Labor Code violations.  Such… Read More

This decision affirms an order denying enforcement of the arbitration clause in USC's employment contract on the ground that it is unconscionable in applying to any dispute (whether or not arising from the employment relationship), in being of perpetual duration (providing that it continued in effect after termination of employment unless both parties agreed otherwise), and lacking mutuality in requiring… Read More

Courts, not arbitrators, must decide which of two contracts between the same parties--one with, the other without an arbitration clause--governs a particular dispute.  This is true even when the arbitration clause in the one contract containing it has a strong delegation clause, leaving to the arbitrator all arbitrability questions.  Here, Coinbase had a basic customer agreement with an arbitration clause… Read More

When  an employer modifies its employment policy to require employees to arbitrate their disputes and clearly communicates to employees that continued employment will constitute assent to an arbitration agreement, the employees will generally be bound by the agreement if they continue to work for the employer.  However, that is not true if, as in this case, an employee promptly rejects… Read More

Even when an arbitration agreement contains a broad delegation clause, the court must first determine whether the parties entered into the arbitration agreement.  Plaintiff who challenges the authenticity of his signature on the arbitration agreement needn't prove it is not authentic but must submit sufficient facts to create a disputed issue of fact, thus shifting the burden back to the… Read More

Disagreeing with Avila v. Southern California Specialty Care, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 835 and following Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838, this decision holds that a medical provider's arbitration provision that complies with CCP 1295 requires the patient's survivors (who didn't sign the arbitration clause) to arbitrate their wrongful death claim based on negligent acts of a health care… Read More

Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement when she was initially employed by defendant on an at-will basis.  That period of employment ended.  Plaintiff was rehired four months after terminating her original employment.  On rehiring plaintiff, defendant did not require her to sign a new arbitration agreement or say anything about reviving the old one.  Held, the trial court's conclusion that there… Read More

Under California’s Health Care Decisions Law (Prob. Code, § 4600 et seq.), a principal may appoint a health care agent to make health care decisions when the principal later lacks capacity to make them.  This decision holds that the agent's authority does not extend to signing an arbitration agreement for the principal, at least when the arbitration agreement is a… Read More

Following Long v. Provide Commerce, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 855 and Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. (9th Cir. 2014) 763 F.3d 1171, this decision holds that "browsewrap"--meaning a website that displays terms of use but does not require the user to affirmatively indicate his acceptance of those terms--is insufficient to indicate agreement to the terms of use, rendering the… Read More

Joining a recent string of other cases, this decision refuses to follow Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, and holds instead that a standard California car sale contract with an arbitration clause does not require the car buyer to arbitrate his warranty claims or Song Beverly Act claims against the car's manufacturer. Read More

This decision holds that Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 did not undermine McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945 or Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. (9th Cir. 2019) 928 F.3d 819 which held that Rent-A-Center's arbitration clause was unenforceable under McGill.  Viking River Cruises dealt with PAGA suits which are different from public injunctions. Read More

This decision holds that the Court of Appeals the de novo standard of review to an order denying a nonsignatory's motion to compel arbitration by invoking equitable estoppel.  It also holds that 14 C.F.R. § 253.10 which forbids air carriers from including forum selection clauses in their contracts of carriage does not forbid an airline from relying on an arbitration… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that plaintiff could not have validly entered into a contract with an arbitration clause when the contract was 21 pages, the review period was 38 seconds and through a cell phone, and plaintiff was 81 years old with virtually no technological ability. Furthermore, plaintiff's income was limited; she was careful… Read More

Following Mejia v. DACM, Inc. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 691 and Maldonado v. Fast Auto Loans (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 710 and rejecting Hodges v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (9th Cir. 2021) 21 F.4th 535, this decision holds that a suit alleging UCL and CLRA claims and seeking an injunction against allegedly false advertising which would benefit both existing and future customers… Read More

The trial court correctly denied enforcement of the employer's arbitration agreement.  The arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable both because it was an adhesion contract in the employment context and because the way it was presented to the prospective employee for electronic signature made it difficult for her to read before signing.  The agreement was substantively unconscionable in containing a confidentiality… Read More

The trial court correctly denied defendant's motion to compel arbitration despite the agreement's delegation clause because plaintiff, a minor, disaffirmed all agreements with defendant pursuant to Family Code 6710.  The disaffirmance voided not only the underlying agreement and its arbitration clause but also its delegation provision.  Plaintiff's disaffirmance of any agreement with defendant was sufficient to disaffirm the delegation clause… Read More

This decision affirms a trial court's denial of defendant elder care facility's motion to compel arbitration.  The arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because the arbitration clause was buried in a lengthy document about other matters, not presented as a separate agreement or marked in any manner to draw attention to it.  Also, the plaintiff was under extreme time pressure to… Read More

Health Net's arbitration clause did not satisfy H&S Code 1363.1's requirements.  The enrollment form did not clearly that the plan required arbitration of disputes because it said that the arbitration clause didn't apply if the plan was governed by ERISA--and the enrolling employee would have no way to determine whether ERISA applied.  Also, because of intervening text about ERISA plans,… Read More

The trial court correctly denied Mattson's motion to compel arbitration of Applied's suit against it for violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Mattson had hired Lai away from Applied.  Lai's employment agreement with Applied contained an arbitration clause.  Mattson was not a party to that contract and could not enforce it on a equitable estoppel basis since Applied's claim… Read More

Following Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 93 and EEOC v. Waffle House Inc. (2002) 122 S.Ct. 754, this decision holds that the People of the State of California (as represented by the Attorney General and two District Attorneys) and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement cannot be required to arbitrate claims that… Read More