Andrade v. U. of Southern Cal. CA2/4

Filed 7/25/25 Andrade v. U. of Southern Cal. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).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

EMANUEL ANDRADE, B338535 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. 18STCV00720) UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Barbara M. Scheper, Judge. Affirmed. Emanuel Andrade, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Carlson & Jayakumar, Keith W. Carlson and Nima A. Jalali for Defendants and Respondents.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Emanuel Andrade appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court confirmed an arbitration award in favor of University of Southern California and Trishia Phan (collectively, USC), and granted USC’s motion for summary judgment on Andrade’s sole remaining cause of action in the superior court for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). As discussed below, Andrade’s opening brief fails to articulate a coherent legal argument challenging the judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Emanuel Andrade filed a complaint in the superior court against USC alleging claims arising out of his employment with USC, and for penalties under PAGA. The parties then stipulated to stay the action in its entirety and submit it to binding arbitration based on their written arbitration agreement. The stipulation further provided, however, that the court would retain jurisdiction over the PAGA cause of action, which would be stayed pending the conclusion of the arbitration. The arbitration took place in October 2022, and on February 28, 2023, the arbitrator issued a final award in favor of USC. In a 22-page written ruling, the arbitrator found Andrade “failed to meet his burden of proof to establish any violations by USC of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California Family Rights Act, the Labor Code, the [Unfair Competition Law], or any other common law employment violations.” USC subsequently filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award in the superior court, which the court granted. The court further