Medhurst v. Madonna Inn CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Dec 15, 2025 No. B339696Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant waived its right to compel arbitration by engaging in conduct inconsistent with an intent to enforce the arbitration agreement, as evidenced by its failure to raise the issue for over a year while participating in class-action litigation and discovery.

Issues

Did the defendant waive its right to compel arbitration under the standard set forth in Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 562?
Does the record contain clear and convincing evidence that the defendant intentionally relinquished or abandoned its right to arbitrate?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The record contains clear and convincing evidence of conduct by appellant “that is so inconsistent with an intent to enforce the contractual right as to lead a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the party had abandoned it.””

Filed 12/15/25 Medhurst v. Madonna Inn 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ERICA MEDHURST, 2d Civ. No. B339696 (Super. Ct. No. 23CV-0165) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

MADONNA INN, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Madonna Inn, Inc. appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration of the wage and hour claims of respondent Erica Medhurst. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.) Appellant contends the trial court erred when it found appellant waived the right to compel arbitration. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Respondent worked as a server in a restaurant operated by appellant in San Luis Obispo. She filed a putative class action complaint against appellant in March of 2023 alleging wage and

hour violations. She filed a separate representative complaint under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) based on the same allegations about two months later. Appellant answered both complaints in June of 2023. The court entered a stipulated order consolidating the class action and PAGA cases in August of 2023. The parties propounded and responded to written discovery requests between November 2023 and April 2024. They sent Belaire-West notices to potential class members in January 2024 and a second round to additional individuals in February.1 Appellant stated in the parties’ April 2024 joint case management statement that it had “recently become aware of the existence of an arbitration agreement.” It moved to compel arbitration. The motion included a supporting affidavit from its human resources manager describing how it presents every employee with an arbitration agreement at the time of hiring. A signed copy of the arbitration agreement was attached to the affidavit as an exhibit. Appellant explained that it participated in litigation and discovery “in a good faith attempt to steer this matter toward resolution with the hope of ultimately reaching an informal settlement.” It requested the court dismiss the class

Medhurst v. Madonna Inn CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

MADONNA INN, INC.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CODY, J.

BALTODANO, J.

AI Brief