Doe v. Lawyers for Employee and Consumer Rights CA2/6

Filed 12/23/25 Doe v. Lawyers for Employee and Consumer Rights CA2/6 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JANE DOE, 2d Civ. No. B330052 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2022- Plaintiff and Respondent, 00573119-CU-WT-VTA) (Ventura County) v. OPINION ON TRANSFER LAWYERS FOR EMPLOYEE FROM SUPREME COURT AND CONSUMER RIGHTS, APC et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Lawyers for Employee and Consumer Rights, a professional corporation; Robert Byrnes; Sabrina Sanders; and Daniel Sorenson (collectively LFECR) appeal a superior court order denying their motion to compel arbitration of the employment dispute lawsuit Jane Doe filed against them. In our prior decision, we concluded that LFECR may not reinstate the prior arbitration proceeding that was dismissed because it failed to

timely pay arbitration fees required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.97, subdivision (a)(1).1 We affirmed. On November 19, 2025, our Supreme Court transferred this matter to us and ordered us to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310. In compliance with that order, we now vacate our prior decision, reverse the trial court’s order, and remand to the trial court with instructions. FACTS Doe was a former employee of LFECR. She entered into an employment agreement that contained an arbitration provision. It provided, among other things, that all disputes regarding her employment be resolved by binding arbitration subject to the Federal Arbitration Act “with a duly authorized representative of the American Arbitration Association (‘AAA’) in accordance with AAA’s procedures.” Doe claimed she was wrongfully terminated. On February 25, 2022, Doe filed a demand for arbitration with AAA. AAA sent notices to the parties that arbitration fees must be paid. One notice to LFECR stated, “ ‘As this arbitration is subject to California Code of Civil Procedure [section] 1281.97, payment must be received by April 13th, 2022 or the AAA will close the parties’ case.’ ” LFECR owed AAA fees in the amount of $1,950, which were due by October 2, 2022. AAA sent notice to LFECR that its payment was due within 30 days as required by section 1281.97; and if payment was not made by that date, then AAA would close its case.