Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California considers Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in Felicia Saul’s employment-related wage and labor-law action. The court finds that two valid arbitration agreements encompass the disputed claims, but holds that Saul is a transportation worker exempt from arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. Applying California law, the court permits two wage-related causes of action to proceed, upholds the class-action waiver, and stays the remaining claims pending arbitration.
Holdings
- Defendants proved by a preponderance of the evidence that two valid arbitration agreements existed and encompassed Saul's employment-related claims. The absence of a defendant signature on the Mutual Arbitration Agreement was not dispositive because the agreement and the parties' conduct demonstrated mutual intent to be bound.
- Saul was a transportation worker exempt from the FAA under 9 U.S.C. § 1 because her warehouse duties played a tangible and meaningful role in preparing goods for movement through interstate commerce.
- Because the FAA did not apply, the parties' agreements required arbitration under California law of causes of action two, three, four, five, seven, and eight, but Labor Code section 229 exempted causes of action one and six from mandatory arbitration.
- The class-action waiver was enforceable as to the claims not subject to arbitration, and Saul could pursue causes of action one and six only on an individual basis.
- The individual claims exempt from arbitration were stayed pending resolution of the claims ordered to arbitration.
Questions Presented
- Whether defendants proved the existence of valid arbitration agreements encompassing Saul's claims.
- Whether Saul qualified as a transportation worker exempt from FAA enforcement under 9 U.S.C. § 1.
- Whether California arbitration law required arbitration of the claims not exempted by California Labor Code section 229.
- Whether the arbitration agreements' class-action waiver was enforceable under the applicable California law.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (23)
- Boardman v. Pac. Seafood Grp., 822 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2016)(followed)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 343, 351 (2011)(followed)
- Shearson/Am. Exp., Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 226 (1987)(followed)
- Concat LP v. Unilever, PLC, 350 F. Supp. 2d 796, 804 (N.D. Cal. 2004)(followed)
- Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp., 533 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
- Greystone Nevada, LLC v. Anthem Highlands Cmty. Ass'n, 549 F. App'x 621, 623 (9th Cir. 2013)(followed)
- Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 925 F.2d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
- Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218, 221 (1985)(followed)
- Hansen v. LMB Mortg. Servs., Inc., 1 F.4th 667, 670 (9th Cir. 2021)(followed)
- First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944 (1995)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 23.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…