Rose v. SAS Retail Services CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Aug 2, 2024 No. G063200Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the parties' arbitration agreement contained a clear, wholesale exclusion of all Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) actions from compulsory arbitration, regardless of whether the claims were individual or representative in nature.

Issues

Whether the parties' arbitration agreement, which excluded 'representative actions' under PAGA, intended to exclude individual PAGA claims from arbitration.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Private attorney general representative actions under the California Labor Code are not arbitrable, not within the scope of this Agreement and may be maintained in a court of law.”

“The trial court therefore did not err by concluding the parties agreed to exclude PAGA actions, and all claims subsumed within them, from the scope of the Agreement.”

Filed 8/2/24 Rose v. SAS Retail Services CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

COURTNEY ROSE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063200

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2022- 01292199) SAS RETAIL SERVICES, LLC, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Peter J. Wilson, Judge. Affirmed. Littler Mendelson, Fermin H. Llaguno, Nolan McCready and Kimberly M. Shappley for Defendant and Appellant. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw, Norman B. Blumenthal and Kyle R. Nordrehaug for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Plaintiff Courtney Rose filed a lawsuit under the Labor Code 1 Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) against her former employer, defendant SAS Retail Services, LLC (SAS). SAS moved to compel arbitration of the PAGA action based on an arbitration agreement Rose signed in May 2018. The trial court denied the motion on the ground the parties’ arbitration agreement excluded all PAGA actions from compulsory arbitration. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In November 2022, Rose filed a “representative action” complaint, in which she solely sought the recovery of civil penalties under section 2699 for SAS’s alleged violations of sections 201, 202, 203, 204 et seq., 210, 218, 221, 226, subdivision (a), 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512, 558, subdivision (a)(1) and (2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802; section 11040 of title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, subdivision 5(A)-(B); and “applicable Wage Order(s).” SAS filed a motion seeking an order compelling Rose to submit her individual PAGA claims to binding arbitration and to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay, her nonindividual PAGA claims (the motion). The motion was supported by evidence showing, from April 23, 2018 until December 20, 2022, SAS employed Rose as a retail reset merchandiser.2 The motion further established on May 4, 2018, Rose executed an arbitration agreement (the

Rose v. SAS Retail Services CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

COURTNEY ROSE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

MOTOIKE, J.

O’LEARY, P. J.

SANCHEZ, J.

AI Brief