Vail v. California Coach Towing CA2/4

Filed 7/25/24 Vail v. California Coach Towing CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

AARON VAIL et al., B325158

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC711973) v.

CALIFORNIA COACH TOWING, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Christopher K. Lui, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Neil C. Evans and Neil C. Evans for Defendant and Appellant. Lesowitz Gebelin and Steven T. Gebelin; Employees First Labor Law, Jonathan P. LaCour and Lisa Noveck for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

INTRODUCTION Appellant California Coach Towing, Inc. (California Coach) appeals from an order denying its motion to compel arbitration. California Coach argues the trial court failed to apply the correct legal standard in determining that its right to arbitration had been waived. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Respondents Aaron Vail, Elmer Rivera, and Raul Rosales, Jr., initiated this case against California Coach, their employer, in July 2018. The operative complaint itself is not part of the record here, but other documents indicate that it contains 10 causes of action—six for violations of the Labor Code, three general tort claims, and one for violation of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Each of the respondents had signed an arbitration agreement with California Coach. The agreements provide that “any claim, dispute, and/or controversy . . . which would otherwise require or allow resort to any court . . . between [respondents] and [California Coach] . . . arising from, related to, or having any relationship or connection whatsoever with [respondents’] seeking employment with, employment by, or other association with [California Coach] . . . shall be submitted to and determined exclusively by binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, in conformity with the procedures of the California Arbitration Act.” California Coach provided copies of these agreements to respondents’ counsel in May 2018, before the case was filed. California Coach also included the agreements as a defense when it filed its answer in August 2018. However, it took no other steps to enforce its rights under the agreements.