Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Annalycia Jenkins, a former employee of Dermatology Management, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit against her employer after resigning. She alleged unfair competition, and the employer sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement Jenkins signed on her first day of work. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding the agreement both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.The San Luis Obispo County Superior Court found the arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable due to its lack of mutuality, shortened statute of limitations, unreasonable discovery restrictions, and requirement for the parties to equally share the arbitrator’s fees and costs. Procedurally, the court noted the agreement was a contract of adhesion, pre-signed by the employer months before Jenkins was hired, and presented to her on a take-it-or-leave-it basis without the presence of the Chief People Officer.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable due to the inequality of bargaining power and the pre-signed nature of the agreement. It also upheld the finding of substantive unconscionability, noting the lack of mutuality, the unreasonable one-year statute of limitations, the unfair cost-sharing provision, and the restrictive discovery terms. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the unconscionable provisions, as doing so would condone an illegal scheme and incentivize employers to draft one-sided agreements. The order denying the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Jenkins v. Dermatology Management, LLC" on Justia Law

Harold Winston, an African-American male with over 30 years of service, sued his employer, the County of Los Angeles, alleging race-based discrimination, retaliation, and failure to maintain a discrimination-free environment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5. While the case was pending, section 1102.5 was amended to allow courts to award reasonable attorney fees to prevailing whistleblower plaintiffs. After the jury found in Winston’s favor on his retaliation claim under section 1102.5, he filed a motion for attorney fees based on the new provision.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Winston’s motion for attorney fees, ruling that the fee provision did not apply retroactively to his case, which was filed in 2019 before the amendment took effect. The court found no legislative intent supporting retroactive application and noted that Winston did not prevail on his FEHA claims, which could have provided a basis for attorney fees.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that a new statute authorizing an award of attorney fees applies to actions pending on the statute’s effective date. The court cited case precedent establishing that newly enacted attorney fee provisions are procedural and apply to pending litigation. The court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case with directions for the trial court to determine the appropriateness and reasonableness of Winston’s fee request. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Winston v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Stephnie Trujillo filed a complaint against her former employer, J-M Manufacturing Company (JMM), and four former coworkers, alleging unlawful sexual/gender discrimination, harassment, failure to prevent such actions, retaliation, and seeking injunctive relief. The parties negotiated and entered into a post-dispute stipulation for arbitration, which was approved by the trial court. Arbitration commenced, and JMM paid the arbitrator’s invoices for over a year. However, JMM failed to pay an invoice by the due date of September 12, 2022, but paid it immediately upon being reminded on October 18, 2022. Trujillo then sought to withdraw from arbitration under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, which the trial court granted.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Trujillo’s motion to withdraw from arbitration, finding that JMM’s late payment constituted a material breach under section 1281.98, which does not allow exceptions for inadvertent delays or lack of prejudice. The court lifted the stay on trial court proceedings, allowing the case to proceed in court.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that section 1281.98 did not apply because the parties entered into a post-dispute stipulation to arbitrate, not a pre-dispute arbitration agreement. Additionally, JMM was not considered the “drafting party” as defined by section 1280, subdivision (e), which refers to the company that included a pre-dispute arbitration provision in a contract. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions to deny Trujillo’s motion to withdraw from arbitration and to reinstate the stay of trial court proceedings pending completion of arbitration. View "Trujillo v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Edgar Gonzalez worked for Nowhere Santa Monica, one of ten related LLCs operating Erewhon markets in Los Angeles. As a condition of his employment, he signed an arbitration agreement with Nowhere Santa Monica. Gonzalez later filed a class action lawsuit against all ten Nowhere entities, alleging various Labor Code violations. He claimed that all entities were his joint employers, sharing control over his employment conditions.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the motion to compel arbitration for Nowhere Santa Monica but denied it for the other entities, finding no evidence that Gonzalez's claims against the non-signatory entities were intertwined with his claims against Nowhere Santa Monica. Gonzalez then dismissed his complaint against Nowhere Santa Monica, and the other entities appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Gonzalez was equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration with the non-Santa Monica entities because his claims against them were intimately founded in and intertwined with his employment agreement with Nowhere Santa Monica. The court reasoned that Gonzalez's joint employer theory inherently linked his claims to the obligations under the employment agreement, which contained an arbitration clause. Therefore, it would be unfair for Gonzalez to claim joint employment for liability purposes while denying the arbitration agreement's applicability.The appellate court reversed the lower court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration for the non-Santa Monica entities, concluding that all of Gonzalez's claims should be arbitrated. View "Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills LLC" on Justia Law

Ashley Howell, a temporary pre-licensed psychiatric technician, was employed by the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) from January 2, 2020, to January 24, 2020. Howell was terminated after DSH discovered she was on medical leave from her previous job due to a 2017 sexual assault, which she did not disclose during her pre-employment health screening. Howell filed a lawsuit against DSH, claiming mental and physical disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).The Napa County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of DSH on Howell’s claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process. Howell dismissed her claim for failure to prevent discrimination. The jury found in favor of Howell on her mental disability discrimination claim, awarding her $36,751.25 in lost earnings and health insurance benefits but nothing for pain and suffering. The court denied Howell’s motion for a new trial on non-economic damages and granted DSH’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, striking the award for lost health insurance benefits. Howell was awarded $135,102 in attorney fees and costs but did not receive a ruling on her request for prejudgment interest.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny Howell’s motion for a new trial and to grant DSH’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court found that Howell did not provide evidence of out-of-pocket expenses for lost health insurance benefits. The court also upheld the trial court’s award of $135,102 in attorney fees and costs, finding Howell’s request for $1.75 million to be unreasonable. However, the appellate court remanded the case for the trial court to address Howell’s request for prejudgment interest. View "Howell v. State Dept. of State Hospitals" on Justia Law

Edgar Gonzalez worked for Nowhere Santa Monica, one of ten related LLCs operating Erewhon markets in Los Angeles. As a condition of employment, Gonzalez signed an arbitration agreement with Nowhere Santa Monica. He later filed a lawsuit against all ten LLCs, alleging various Labor Code violations and claiming they were joint employers. The non-Santa Monica entities moved to compel arbitration based on the agreement with Nowhere Santa Monica, but Gonzalez opposed, arguing they were not parties to the agreement.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the motion to compel arbitration for Nowhere Santa Monica but denied it for the other entities, finding no evidence that Gonzalez's claims against the non-signatory defendants were intertwined with the arbitration agreement. Gonzalez then dismissed his complaint against Nowhere Santa Monica, and the other entities appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that Gonzalez was equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration with the non-Santa Monica entities because his claims against them were intimately founded in and intertwined with the employment agreement with Nowhere Santa Monica. The court reasoned that Gonzalez's joint employment theory inherently linked his claims to the obligations under the employment agreement, which contained the arbitration clause. Therefore, the court reversed the lower court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration for the non-Santa Monica entities. View "Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills LLC" on Justia Law

Stephnie Trujillo filed a complaint against her former employer, J-M Manufacturing Company (JMM), and four former coworkers, alleging unlawful sexual/gender discrimination, harassment, failure to prevent such acts, retaliation, and seeking injunctive relief. The parties negotiated and entered into a post-dispute stipulation for arbitration, which was approved by the trial court. Arbitration commenced, and JMM paid the arbitrator’s invoices timely for over a year. However, JMM paid one invoice late, leading Trujillo to file a motion to withdraw from arbitration under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, which the trial court granted.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Trujillo’s motion to withdraw from arbitration, finding that JMM’s late payment constituted a material breach under section 1281.98, despite acknowledging that the delay did not prejudice Trujillo. The court lifted the stay on trial court proceedings, allowing the case to proceed in court.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that section 1281.98 did not apply because the parties had entered into a post-dispute stipulation to arbitrate, not a pre-dispute arbitration agreement. Additionally, JMM was not considered the “drafting party” as defined by section 1280, subdivision (e), since the stipulation was primarily drafted by Trujillo. The appellate court remanded the case with instructions to deny Trujillo’s motion to withdraw from arbitration and to reinstate the stay of trial court proceedings pending the completion of arbitration. View "Trujillo v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Antonio Juarez, Jose Hinojosa, Jose Espinosa, and Maria Morfin filed a lawsuit against the San Bernardino City Unified School District following an incident involving Officer Alejandro Brown, a District employee. In February 2018, Juarez found a cell phone and later, Officer Brown, tracking his phone, confronted the plaintiffs, identifying himself as a District police officer. Brown, armed and displaying his badge, demanded compliance, struck Juarez with his firearm, and threatened the others. Brown later pled guilty to assault and battery and threatening the plaintiffs under color of law.The Superior Court of Riverside County sustained the District’s demurrer to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint without leave to amend, leading to the dismissal of the case. The court found the complaint insufficient to establish that Officer Brown was acting within the scope of his employment with the District and dismissed the claims of negligence, battery, assault, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, false arrest and imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Bane Act.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reversed and remanded the case. The appellate court held that the scope of employment is a factual issue that cannot be resolved as a matter of law on demurrer. The court found that Officer Brown’s off-duty misconduct, while investigating a suspected theft and wielding his authority as a peace officer, could be regarded as an outgrowth of his employment. The court directed the trial court to vacate its order sustaining the demurrer, enter a new order overruling the demurrer, and conduct further proceedings. The appellate court also rejected the District’s arguments regarding the Bane Act and found the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficient to state a cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. View "Juarez v. San Bernardino City Unified Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

In 2013, Dr. Johnathan Slone began working as a general surgeon at El Centro Regional Medical Center (Center) on a locum tenens basis. Despite not being board-certified, he was granted full staff privileges in January 2015. In April 2016, Slone became an employee of the Imperial Valley MultiSpecialty Medical Group (IVMSMG) and later entered into a contract with Community Care IPA (IPA) to provide healthcare administrative services. In July 2017, Slone was informed by the Center that he had until July 2020 to become board-certified. Subsequently, he resigned from IVMSMG and began working full-time for IPA. In September 2017, the Center suspended his privileges for failing to complete medical records, and by March 2018, his suspension was deemed a voluntary resignation.Slone filed a fourth amended complaint in February 2021, alleging that the Center retaliated against him in violation of Health and Safety Code section 1278.5 after he reported concerns about patient care. The case proceeded to a bench trial solely on this cause of action. The Superior Court of Imperial County found in favor of the Center, concluding that Slone did not suffer retaliation and had not proven any economic or noneconomic damages.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that Slone did not carry his burden on appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the trial court's findings that the Center did not retaliate against Slone for his complaints about patient care. The court also upheld the trial court's findings that Slone voluntarily resigned from his surgical practice to pursue a career as a medical administrator and did not suffer any economic or noneconomic damages as a result of the alleged retaliation. View "Slone v. El Centro Regional Medical Center" on Justia Law

The case involves the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) challenging the County of Los Angeles and its Office of the Inspector General (OIG) over the implementation of Penal Code sections 13670 and 13510.8. These sections, effective January 1, 2022, mandate law enforcement agencies to prohibit participation in law enforcement gangs and cooperate with investigations into such gangs. The OIG sent letters to 35 deputies, directing them to participate in interviews about their knowledge of and involvement in law enforcement gangs, and to display and provide photographs of gang-associated tattoos.The Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (ERCOM) had previously ruled that the County violated the Employee Relations Ordinance (ERO) by not negotiating the effects of a new ordinance with ALADS. ALADS filed an unfair labor practice claim with ERCOM and sought injunctive relief from the trial court to enjoin the OIG from proceeding with the interviews without first meeting and conferring with ALADS under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) and the ERO.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that the interview directive triggered the duty to meet and confer with ALADS under the MMBA. The court found that the interviews had significant and adverse effects on working conditions, particularly concerning potential disciplinary actions, and that the County failed to demonstrate a compelling need for immediate investigation without prior negotiation.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, affirmed the trial court's order. The appellate court agreed that the OIG's decision to conduct interviews was a managerial decision but that the effects of this decision, including potential discipline and the manner of implementation, were subject to bargaining under the MMBA. The court found no error in the trial court's balancing of the interim harm, noting the lack of evidence suggesting that effects bargaining could not be performed expeditiously. View "Assn. for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. County of L.A." on Justia Law