Resendiz v. Canyon Restaurant, Ltd. CA2/6

Filed 8/18/25 Resendiz v. Canyon Restaurant, Ltd. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

ASHAEL RESENDIZ, 2d Civ. No. B342091 (Super. Ct. No. 24CV00190) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

CANYON RESTAURANT, LTD., L.P. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Defendants Canyon Restaurant, Ltd., L.P.; Reunion Boat Canyon, L.P.; Reunion Santa Barbara, LLC; Reunion Dos Lagos, Inc.; and Scott McIntosh (collectively Canyon) appeal an order denying their motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff Ashael Resendiz filed a representative private attorney general action (PAGA) against these defendants for Labor Code violations. (Lab. Code, § 2699.) Because Resendiz did not bring an individual PAGA action, the trial court denied Canyon’s motion to arbitrate. We affirm.

FACTS In 2018, Resendiz, as an employee of Canyon, signed an arbitration agreement. It provided, “Employee and Company agree to utilize binding arbitration as the sole and exclusive means to resolve all disputes that may arise out of or be related in any way to Employee’s employment . . . .” Section 4, of that agreement provides, “This binding arbitration agreement shall not be construed to allow or permit the consolidation or joinder of other claims or controversies involving any other employees, and will not proceed as a class action, collective action, private attorney general action or any similar representative action. No arbitrator shall have the authority under this agreement to order any such class or representative action.” (Italics added.) In January 2024, Resendiz filed an action under Labor Code section 2699, on behalf of himself and other employees of Canyon, seeking “PAGA civil penalties.” Resendiz alleged Canyon, among other things, did not pay employees minimum wages, overtime, and sick time wages. On July 17, 2024, Resendiz filed a request for dismissal of the “non-representative or individual PAGA claim alleged in the complaint.” Resendiz stated that he “intends to proceed in this action on behalf of aggrieved employees under PAGA only, and not in [his] individual capacity.” On July 24, 2024, the trial court “signed and entered an order for dismissal of the individual non-representative PAGA claims alleged by Resendiz in the complaint.” On August 7, 2024, Canyon filed a motion for an order compelling arbitration and “staying this litigation.” Canyon