Neubecker v. Evans Hotels, LLC CA4/1

Filed 8/18/25 Neubecker v. Evans Hotels, LLC CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD NEUBECKER, D084176

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2023- 00051797-CU-OE-CTL) EVANS HOTELS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Marcella O. McLaughlin, Judge. Affirmed. Barnes & Thornburg, Mark W. Wallin and Michael P. Witczak, for Defendants and Appellants. Sullivan & Yaeckel Law Group, Eric K. Yaeckel, Ryan T. Kuhn, and Cody D. Archer for Plaintiff and Respondent. Edward Neubecker—in a representative capacity only—sued Evans Hotels, LLC and The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership, L.P. (collectively, Hotel) under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.). Hotel contends the trial court erred in not compelling Neubecker to

arbitrate his individual PAGA claims. But because Neubecker asserts no individual PAGA claims in this case, we affirm. I. Hotel hired Neubecker as a server. Neubecker signed an arbitration agreement with Hotel. Later, Neubecker sued Hotel under PAGA for Labor Code violations. He did so “in a Representative capacity only.” In response, Hotel moved to compel arbitration of Neubecker’s “individual claims.” Neubecker raised several arguments in opposition, including that Hotel improperly sought to compel to arbitration “individual claims that are not before the court” given he asserted only “PAGA claims in his representative capacity.” In reply, Hotel disagreed “that PAGA claims cannot be compelled to arbitration unless a PAGA complaint explicitly asserts an individual PAGA claim.” Hotel did not, however, directly contest Neubecker’s assertion his complaint lacked individual claims. The trial court denied the motion on a different ground, finding a “poison pill” provision invalidated the entire arbitration agreement. II. A. Neubecker contends Hotel’s appeal is “procedurally, and fatally, defective” for failure to identify the standard of review. Yet Neubecker cites no authority imposing the “procedural default” he seeks. “Arguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review.” (Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1388.) Though it would have been a better practice for Hotel to explicitly identify the applicable standard of review in its opening brief, Neubecker does not accuse