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 […]
A driver with arbitration agreement with Lyft, does not have to arbitrate his claims against Uber
The First Appellate District of California Courts of Appeal in Smythe v. Uber Technologies, Inc. faced a case involving both Uber and Lyft. Plaintiff claimed that Uber directed its drivers and others to use fake Lyft accounts to request rides, sending Lyft drivers on “wild goose chases.” He asserted claims for unfair business practices and […]
Dynamex isn’t just about Wage Orders
After the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), the legal and business communities focused on its holding that for purposes of claims made pursuant to California’s Wage Orders, the Wage Orders’ definition of “employee” controls, and not the traditional common law multi-factor test. Of course, […]
No leave to amend if the class representative is deemed inadequate
In Jones v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 986 (“Jones”), the California Court of Appeal held that “[t]he lack of an adequate class representative … does not justify the denial of the certification motion. Instead, the trial court must allow Plaintiff[[] an opportunity to amend [his] complaint to name a suitable class representative. [Citation […]