Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles CA2/2

Filed 2/19/15 Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles CA2/2 Opinion following remand from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

ARSHAVIR ISKANIAN, B235158

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC356521) v.

CLS TRANSPORTATION LOS ANGELES, LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert Hess, Judge. Reversed in part and remanded with directions.

Capstone Law, Glenn Danas; Initiative Legal Group, Raul Perez for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Fox Rothschild, David F. Faustman, Yesenia M. Gallegos, Namal Tantula for Defendant and Respondent.

___________________________________________________

In August 2011, Arshavir Iskanian appealed a trial court order requiring him to arbitrate claims brought against his former employer, CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC (CLS). The order also dismissed class claims. The trial court based its decision granting CLS’s motion to compel arbitration on an employment agreement that contained a class and representative action waiver and also provided that “any and all claims” arising out of Iskanian’s employment were to be submitted to binding arbitration before a neutral arbitrator. The operative first amended complaint alleged seven causes of action for Labor Code violations and an unfair competition law claim (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). Iskanian brought his claims as an individual, as a putative class representative,1 and (with respect to the Labor Code claims) in a representative capacity under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (the PAGA, Labor Code section 2698 et seq.). In a now depublished opinion (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (Jun. 4, 2012, B235158) [opn. ordered nonpub. Sep. 19, 1012]), we affirmed the trial court’s order, finding that the trial court properly enforced the arbitration agreement according to its terms. We held, among other things, that AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) __ U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740] (Concepcion) abrogated the test enunciated in Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 (Gentry), which, under certain circumstances, permitted a trial court to invalidate a class arbitration waiver so that employees could “‘vindicate [their] unwaivable rights’” through class arbitration. (Gentry, at p. 463.) We determined that Concepcion, supra, 131 S.Ct. at pages 1750- 1751, rejected the concept that class arbitration procedures should be imposed on a party who never agreed to them. We further found that the arbitration agreement properly prohibited representative claims, and that while Iskanian could pursue individual PAGA