Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Peter Quach filed a lawsuit against California Commerce Club (Commerce Club) after being terminated from his job at the casino where he had worked for nearly 30 years. Quach's complaint included claims of wrongful termination, age discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, and he demanded a jury trial. Commerce Club had previously provided Quach with a signed arbitration agreement from 2015, which mandated binding arbitration for employment-related disputes. Instead of moving to compel arbitration, Commerce Club answered the complaint and engaged in extensive discovery, including propounding interrogatories and taking Quach’s deposition.The Los Angeles County Superior Court denied Commerce Club’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that Commerce Club had waived its right to arbitrate by engaging in litigation for 13 months. The court noted that Commerce Club had actively participated in discovery and requested a jury trial, actions inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. Commerce Club appealed, and the Second Appellate District, Division One, reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that Quach had not shown sufficient prejudice from Commerce Club’s delay in seeking arbitration.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and abrogated the state’s arbitration-specific prejudice requirement, aligning with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. The court held that under California law, as under federal law, courts should apply the same principles to determine waiver of the right to compel arbitration as they do for other contracts. The court concluded that Commerce Club had waived its right to compel arbitration by engaging in litigation conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. View "Quach v. Cal. Commerce Club, Inc." on Justia Law

A former employee sued her employer, Charter Communications, Inc., alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as well as wrongful discharge. Charter moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement the employee had signed during the onboarding process. The employee opposed, arguing the arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.The Los Angeles County Superior Court found the agreement to be a contract of adhesion and substantively unconscionable due to provisions that shortened the time for filing claims, allowed Charter to recover attorney fees contrary to FEHA, and imposed an interim fee award for compelling arbitration. The court refused to enforce the agreement, finding it permeated with unconscionability. The Second Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed, identifying additional unconscionable provisions and disagreeing with another appellate decision regarding interim fee awards.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and agreed that certain provisions of the arbitration agreement were substantively unconscionable, including the lack of mutuality in covered and excluded claims, the shortened limitations period for filing claims, and the potential for an unlawful award of attorney fees. The court clarified that the discovery limitations were not unconscionable, as the arbitrator had the authority to order additional discovery if necessary.The Supreme Court held that the agreement's unconscionable provisions could potentially be severed, and the matter was remanded for further consideration of whether the unconscionable provisions could be severed to enforce the remainder of the agreement. The court also concluded that the Court of Appeal’s decision did not violate the Federal Arbitration Act. View "Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of California considered whether a health care agent, who had signed two contracts with a skilled nursing facility on behalf of a principal, had the authority to sign an optional, separate arbitration agreement. The first contract ensured the principal’s admission to the facility, while the second made arbitration the exclusive method for resolving disputes with the facility. The court concluded that the execution of the arbitration contract was not a "health care decision" within the authority of the health care agent. Therefore, the facility’s owners and operators could not rely on the agent’s execution of the arbitration agreement to compel arbitration of claims arising from the principal’s alleged maltreatment. The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that an aggrieved employee who has been compelled to arbitrate claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code 2698 et seq., that are "premised on Labor Code violations actually sustained by" Plaintiff maintains statutory standing to pursue PAGA claims arising out of events involving other employees in court.The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals holding that the trial court properly found, among other things, that PAGA claims are not subject to arbitration, holding (1) to have PAGA standing, a plaintiff must be an "aggrieved employee" - i.e., one who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed; and (2) when a plaintiff brings a PAGA action composed of both individual and non-individual claims, "an order compelling arbitration of the individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing to proceed as an aggrieved employee to litigate claims on behalf of other employees under PAGA." View "Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this case to the court of appeal to determine in the first instance whether Sarah Plott Key was entitled to equitable relief from the 100-day deadline prescribed by Cal. Code Civ. P. 1288.2, holding that the section 1288.2 deadline is not jurisdictional and does not otherwise prelude equitable tolling or estoppel.Plaintiff prevailed in an arbitration against Defendant and petitioned to confirm the award. Defendant moved to vacate the award. The trial court vacated the award despite the fact that Defendant filed her motion to vacate outside the 100-day deadline. The court of appeal reversed, concluding that the 100-day deadline was jurisdictional and that the parties could not extend the deadline by agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiff's requests were filed outside the applicable statutory period; and (2) section 1288.2's deadline for seeking vacatur of an arbitral award is a nonjurisdictional statute of limitations that is subject to equitable tolling and equitable estoppel. View "Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Curtis Olson failed to show the requisite "minimal merit" on a critical element of his breach of contract claim and thus could not defeat Jane Doe's anti-SLAPP motion.Doe and Olson each owned units in the same condominium building. Doe brought a civil harassment restraining order against Olson, and as a result of court-ordered mediation, the parties agreed if they encountered each other in a public or common place "not to disparage one another." Doe later filed a civil lawsuit against Olson seeking damages. Olson cross-complained for breach of contract and specific performance, and Doe moved to strike Olson's cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal's judgment insofar as it reversed the trial court's order granting Doe's special motion to strike the breach of contract clause of action with respect to statements in Doe's civil complaint, holding that Doe had no obligation under the contract to refrain from making disparaging statements in litigation, and therefore, Olson could not defeat Doe's anti-SLAPP motion. View "Olson v. Doe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Convention) does not apply when parties have agreed to waive formal service of process in favor of a specified type of notification.Defendant, a company based in China, and Plaintiff entered into a contract providing that the parties would submit to the jurisdiction of California courts and to resolve disputes between them through California arbitration. The parties further agreed to provide notice and service of process to each other through Federal Express or a similar courier. Plaintiff later sought arbitration. Defendant neither responded nor appeared for the arbitration, and the arbitrator awarded Plaintiff $414,601,200. Defendant moved to set aside default judgment for insufficiency of service of process, arguing that Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Convention rendered the judgment confirming the arbitration award void. The motion was denied. The court of appeal reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Convention applies only when the law of the forum state requires formal service of process to be sent abroad; and (2) because the parties' contract constituted a waiver of formal service under California law in favor of an alternative form of notification, the Convention does not apply. View "Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia VII) v. Changzhou SinoType Technology Co." on Justia Law

In this dispute over attorney fees and costs following arbitration the Supreme Court held (1) a request for costs under Cal. Code Civ. P. 998 is timely if filed with the arbitrator within fifteen days of a final award and that judicial review is limited if an arbitrator refuses to award costs; and (2) the court of appeal erred in relying on a narrow exception to those limits.Client retained Attorney, and the representation agreement included a clause providing for private arbitration of disputes involving legal fees. Attorney later sued Client alleging that he owed outstanding legal fees. Client made an offer to settle the case under section 998, but the offer was not accepted. Thereafter, Client filed a demand for arbitration, which the court granted. The arbitrator issued an award granting $0 to both parties. Thereafter, Client sought costs. The arbitrator refused to award costs. The trial court confirmed the award and also refused to add costs. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) evidence of a section 998 offer may be presented before or after a final arbitration award; (2) Client's request for costs was timely; but (3) the arbitrator's denial of costs cannot be vacated. View "Heimlich v. Shivji" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that this lawsuit brought by security guards at Oracle Park (the former AT&T Park in San Francisco) against San Francisco Baseball Associates LLC (the Giants) alleging a violation of Cal. Lab. Code 201, subd. (a) was preempted under federal law and must be submitted to arbitration, holding that the trial court correctly denied the Giants' motion to compel arbitration.In this action, the guards claimed that they were discharged after every Giants homestead, at the end of the baseball season, and after other events at the park, and that they were entitled under section 201 to receive their unpaid wages immediately after each discharge. The Giants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that this action was preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act because the controversy required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) entered into between the parties. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeal reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) while the CBA may be relevant to this lawsuit, the dispute turned on the meaning of "discharge" under section 201 rather than an interpretation of the CBA itself; and (2) therefore, the lawsuit was not preempted, and state courts may decide it on the merits. View "Melendez v. San Francisco Baseball Associates LLC" on Justia Law

In this dispute between a law firm and the party it previously represented, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal insofar as it reversed the superior court’s judgment entered on an arbitration award but reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment insofar as it ordered disgorgement of all fees collected, holding that the law firm's conduct rendered the parties' arbitration agreement unenforceable but that the ethical violation did not categorically disentitle the law firm from recovering the value of services it rendered to the opposing party.A law firm agreed to represent a manufacturing company in a federal qui tam action. The law firm was later disqualified, and the parties disagreed as to the manufacturer’s outstanding law firm bills. The dispute was sent to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause in the parties’ engagement agreement, and the arbitrators ruled in favor of the law firm. The superior court confirmed the award. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding (1) the law firm committed an ethical violation that rendered the parties’ agreement, including the arbitration clause, unenforceable in its entirety; and (2) the law firm was disentitled from receiving any compensation for the work it performed for the manufacturer. The Supreme Court agreed that the law firm’s conduct rendered the parties’ agreement unenforceable but concluded that the ethical violation did not categorically disentitle the law firm from recovering the value of the services it rendered to the manufacturer. View "Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co." on Justia Law