Who decides An Arbitration Agreement provides for Class Arbitration?

In Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 65, the plaintiff filed a putative class action for race, color, national origin, and ancestry discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The trial court compelled individual arbitration and dismissed the class allegations. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the arbitrator, rather than the trial court, must determine whether an arbitration agreement provides for class arbitration. The Court of Appeal’s decision is here.

The California Supreme Court granted review on November 12, 2014. The Court’s docket page for Sandquist is here.

Latest Blog

Prejudice is not required for waiver of arbitration

No prejudice is required in determining whether a party to an arbitration agreement has waived its right to compel the arbitration and stay the action in the court. Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (US 21–328 5/23/22) Arbitration Petitioner Robyn Morgan worked as an hourly employee at a Taco Bell franchise owned by respondent Sundance. When applying for […]

Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA)

As part of the federal CARES Act, the new Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program helps unemployed Californians who are business owners, self-employed, independent contractors, have limited work history, and others not usually eligible for regular state UI benefits who are out of business or services are significantly reduced as a direct result of the pandemic. The […]

GrubHub, DoorDash, Postmates and Uber Eats were sued in for sticking restaurants with “devil’s choice”

NEW YORK (Reuters) – GrubHub, DoorDash, Postmates and Uber Eats were sued on Monday for allegedly exploiting their dominance in restaurant meal deliveries to impose fees that consumers ultimately bear through higher menu prices, including during the coronavirus pandemic. In a proposed class action filed in Manhattan federal court, three consumers said the defendants violated […]

The California Supreme Court will decide on the faith of the gig economy

The California Supreme Court in CASTELLANOS v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Case: S279622) is presented with the question that does Business and Professions Code section 7451, which was enacted by Proposition 22 (the “Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act”), conflict with article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution and therefore require that Proposition 22, by […]

Rest and meal premiums are considered wages

The California Supreme Court in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (SC S258966 5/23/22), held that meal breaks are considered wages for the purpose of waiting penalty statute if the employee is not paid when the employment ends with the employer. The Naranjo Court, held that the extra pay for missed breaks constitutes “wages” that must be reported on […]