Pich v. Laseraway CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Jan 28, 2025 No. B331219Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that no enforceable arbitration agreement existed because the employer failed to sign the agreement, which contained language explicitly requiring signatures from both parties to form a binding contract.

Issues

Whether an employer's failure to sign an arbitration agreement precludes the formation of a valid contract when the agreement's terms explicitly require signatures from both parties.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because LaserAway did not sign the agreement per its unambiguous terms, the parties never formed an agreement to arbitrate.”

“The agreement’s terms clearly state LaserAway’s signature is necessary to form an agreement to arbitrate”

Filed 1/28/25 Pich v. Laseraway CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

HEATHER PICH, B331219 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. 23STCV01082) LASERAWAY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Carolyn B. Kuhl, Judge. Affirmed. Epstein Becker & Green, Michael S. Kun and Kevin D. Sullivan for Defendants and Appellants. Yoffe & Cooper, Alexander Yoffe; Rosen Saba, Ryan D. Saba and Michael Forman for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Heather Pich filed a putative class action against her former employers, LaserAway, LLC, and LaserAway Medical Group, Inc. (collectively, LaserAway), alleging various wage and hour claims under the Labor Code arising out of her employment.1 In response, LaserAway moved to compel arbitration, strike the class claims, dismiss the tenth cause of action for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), and dismiss or stay the litigation. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that LaserAway failed to prove the existence of an agreement between the parties to arbitrate. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

LaserAway hired Pich in May 2021. Pich electronically signed several employment related documents using LaserAway’s computerized onboarding process, including one entitled Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Employment Related Disputes (the agreement). The agreement provides, in relevant part that it “is made and entered into by and between Heather Pich and LaserAway (the ‘Company’).” It further provides: “The Company and I understand and agree that we will arbitrate disputes and claims under this Agreement instead of a court trial before a judge and/or a jury. The Company and I understand and agree that, by signing this Agreement, we are expressly waiving any and all rights to a trial before a judge and/or a jury regarding any

Pich v. Laseraway CA2/4

AI Brief

INTRODUCTION

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MORI, J.

ZUKIN, J.

AI Brief