Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Jarboe was hired by DKD of Davis, doing business as Hanlees Davis Toyota. Shortly after he began working, Jarboe was transferred to Leehan of Davis, doing business as Hanlees Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Kia. Following his termination at Leehan, Jarboe brought a wage and hour action against the Hanlees Auto Group, its 12 affiliated dealerships, including DKD and Leehan, and three individuals. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an employment agreement between Jarboe and DKD. The trial court granted the motion as to 11 of the 12 causes of action against DKD of Davis but denied the motion as to the other defendants and allowed Jarboe’s claim under the Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code 2698. to proceed in court against all defendants. The court refused to stay the causes of action allowed to proceed in litigation pending arbitration of Jarboe’s claims against DKD. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting an argument by Hanlees, its affiliated dealerships, and the individual defendants that they were entitled to enforce the agreement to arbitrate between Jarboe and DKD as third party beneficiaries of Jarboe’s employment agreement or under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The trial court did not err in failing to stay the litigation under Labor Code section 1281. View "Jarboe v. Hanlees Auto Group" on Justia Law

Noe hired attorney Dorit to evaluate the medical records of Noe’s deceased mother for a potential medical malpractice suit. Noe agreed to pay Dorit a $10,000 non-refundable retainer fee, intended to cover Dorit’s time spent evaluating the claim, plus “the costs of additional medical records and/or expert medical review if indicated.” The agreement stated, “Should there arise any disagreement as to the amount of attorney fees and/or costs, Client agrees to enter into binding arbitration of such issue or dispute before the Bar Association of San Francisco.” Ultimately, Dorit said he did not think a malpractice claim was viable. Noe later asked Dorit to return some or all of the retainer fee. Dorit refused. Noe filed a request for arbitration. An arbitrator awarded Noe nothing and allocated him the entire filing fee. Because neither party requested a trial de novo, the award became binding under the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act MFAA). Months later, Dorit sued Noe for malicious prosecution based on the initiation of arbitration. Noe filed a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. The court of appeal reversed the denial of his motion. A malicious prosecution claim cannot be based on an MFAA arbitration. View "Dorit v. Noe" on Justia Law

Younan worked for Fleming, 2009-2016. In 2017, he filed a complaint with the Labor Commission, seeking $22,000 in commissions, plus penalties and interest. Fleming asserted to the Labor Commissioner that the complaint should be dismissed because the parties signed an (attached) arbitration agreement. The Commissioner did not dismiss the complaint but Fleming did not file a petition to compel arbitration. A hearing was set for August 2018. In July, Fleming filed an Answer that contained affirmative defenses, including that arbitration was the proper forum. On August 7, Fleming moved to vacate the August 13 hearing and dismiss the complaint because Younan’s employment application and agreement required arbitration, again stating that “[Fleming] is prepared to file a motion with the Superior Court seeking to compel arbitration.” Both parties appeared at the August 13 hearing. Fleming’s motion was denied because Fleming had failed to obtain a stay from the superior court. In December, the Labor Commissioner awarded Younan commissions plus interest and liquidated damages. Fleming filed a notice of appeal; a de novo trial was scheduled for March 2019. In February, Fleming filed an unsuccessful petition to compel arbitration, stay proceedings and vacate the order. The court of appeal affirmed, finding that Fleming waived its right to arbitration by taking steps inconsistent with an intent to invoke arbitration, including delaying its request to the superior court until after a full hearing. Fleming also failed to establish an agreement to arbitrate existed. View "Younan v. Fleming Distribution Co." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Impact regarding a contractual dispute with VVA. In rejecting VVA's arguments, the court was guided by the general policy in favor of arbitration and, more specifically, in favor of interpreting arbitration awards to give effect to parties' stated desire to avoid court involvement. In the published portion of the opinion, the court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in awarding the remedy. The court also held that there is no basis for vacating the award, because the award is not incomplete or uncertain for failure to expressly address third party consent. View "VVA-TWO, LLC v. Impact Development Group, LLC" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court court's order granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin arbitration. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood he would prevail on the issue of whether his claim was arbitrable. In this case, plaintiff would likely prevail on the merits because he cannot be compelled to submit any portion of his representative Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 claim to arbitration. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that plaintiff demonstrated that the interim harm he would suffer if the injunction was denied outweighed the harm AmeriHome would suffer if the injunction was granted. View "Brooks v. AmeriHome Mortgage Co., LLC" on Justia Law

After plaintiff made four purchases of precious metals from defendants, he filed suit alleging that defendants misled him. Plaintiff, as trustee for the Dennison Family Trust, purchased the precious metals after seeing television commercials promoting such investments.The Court of Appeal held that the arbitration agreement does not clearly and unmistakably delegate authority to the arbitrator to decide unconscionability; the arbitration agreement is unconscionable based on lack of mutuality, limitations on defendants' liability, and the statute of limitations; and the court could not save the arbitration agreement by severing a single offending clause because the agreement is permeated with unconscionable terms. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Dennison v. Rosland Capital LLC" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Monster Energy's motion to compel arbitration of a disability discrimination action brought by plaintiff. While the court agreed with Monster Energy that the trial court relied on an erroneous understanding of applicable law regarding the number of unconscionable provisions that may render an arbitration agreement irreparable by severance, the court held that there has been no argument here about the alternative ground for the ruling. Therefore, the court could not conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Monster Energy's motion. Rather, the court agreed with the trial court that the parties' arbitration agreement is permeated with too high a degree of unconscionability for severance to rehabilitate. View "Lange v. Monster Energy Co." on Justia Law

After Victrola filed suit against the Jaman Parties, defendants moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) based on the parties' real estate purchase agreement. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the procedural provisions of the California Arbitration Act (CAA), rather than those of the FAA, applied to its ruling on the motion.The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the parties incorporated the procedural provisions of the FAA into the agreement and thus the trial court could not look to section 1281.2(c) of the CAA to deny defendants' motion; the agreement's arbitration clause encompasses all of Victrola's claims against defendants; the FAA preempts section 1298.7 in this instance; and JP and Manheim have standing to enforce the arbitration provision. The court vacated the trial court's order, with instructions to determine whether defendants are prejudicially estopped from claiming the FAA's procedural provisions apply. View "Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC" on Justia Law

The chapter filed suit against defendant and the housing corporation for constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and others.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of the housing corporation's motion to compel arbitration and held that the chapter must arbitrate its claims against the housing corporation. In this case, the international fraternity is an overarching and governing international organization, and the local chapter of this fraternity is merely a subordinate fraternal component of the international fraternity. Furthermore, the international fraternity and the housing corporation wanted arbitration, and thus this was in effect a stipulation for arbitration. Therefore, the chapter lacked legal power to disregard the instruction from the international fraternity. The court also held that the housing corporation has not waived its right to arbitrate. View "Gamma Eta Chapter of Pi Kappa Alpha v. Helvey" on Justia Law

After the condominium association sued the developer alleging construction defects, the association began arbitration without obtaining a vote of its members. However, the association's governing documents required arbitration of such disputes and a vote of at least 51 percent of the association's membership prior to beginning arbitration. The members later overwhelmingly voted to pursue the arbitration, but the arbitrator dismissed the arbitration for lack of a membership vote prior to its commencement.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's confirmation of the award and entry of judgment for the developer. The court disagreed with Branches Neighborhood Corp. v. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 743, which held that unless the association has obtained approval by a vote of at least 51 percent of its members prior to beginning arbitration, it has forever forfeited its right to pursue its claims in any forum in spite of an overwhelming ratifying vote. The court stated that this interpretation directly violates the public policy expressed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(4).In this case, the court held that the language of section 7.01B of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's) violates explicit legislative expressions of public policy. Furthermore, the Legislature has also determined that provisions such as section 7.01B are unconscionable. The court stated that Senate Bill No. 326 bars the use of provisions such as section 7.01B as a defense for developers against claims of condominium associations. View "Dos Vientos v. CalAtlantic Group, Inc." on Justia Law