Miranda v. Anderson Enterprises, Inc.

Filed 10/15/15 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

ISIDRO MIRANDA, Plaintiff and Appellant, A140328 v. ANDERSON ENTERPRISES, INC. et al., (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-13-528923) Defendants and Respondents.

Isidro Miranda (appellant) appeals from the trial court’s order compelling him to arbitrate his individual claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) and dismissing his representative PAGA claim.1 In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that the “death knell” doctrine, which provides an exception to the one final judgment rule when an order allows a plaintiff to pursue individual but not class claims, applies to representative claims as well. In the unpublished portion we agree with appellant that a California Supreme Court opinion issued after the appealed-from order requires reversal.

* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part II. 1 Under PAGA, “an ‘aggrieved employee’ may bring a civil action personally and on behalf of other current or former employees to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations. [Citation.] Of the civil penalties recovered, 75 percent goes to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, leaving the remaining 25 percent for the ‘aggrieved employees.’ ” (Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 980–981, fn. omitted (Arias).)

1

BACKGROUND- The relevant facts are undisputed. Appellant is a former employee of Anderson Enterprises, Inc.; Andy Hansen is the company’s general manager.2 During his employment, appellant signed an “Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy” by which he, among other things, agreed to arbitrate all employment claims and waived the right to arbitrate claims as a class or collective action. In February 2013, appellant filed the instant class action lawsuit against respondents asserting various wage and hour claims, including a PAGA claim. Respondents filed a petition to dismiss appellant’s class and representative claims, compel arbitration of his individual claims, and stay the superior court proceedings. In September 2013, the trial court granted respondent’s petition. The trial court found the arbitration agreement valid and enforceable, dismissed appellant’s class and representative claims without prejudice based on the arbitration agreement’s waiver, directed appellant to arbitrate his individual claims, and stayed the superior court proceedings pending completion of the arbitration of appellant’s individual claims. DISCUSSION On appeal, appellant challenges the trial court’s order only with respect to his representative PAGA claim, arguing it is contrary to a subsequently-issued California Supreme Court opinion, Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian). We agree. I. Appealability As an initial matter, respondents contend the trial court’s order is not presently appealable. “Orders granting motions to compel arbitration are generally not immediately appealable.” (Nelsen v. Legacy Partners Residential, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1115, 1121.) Appellant argues his appeal falls within the death knell exception, which “provides that an order which allows a plaintiff to pursue individual claims, but prevents the plaintiff from maintaining the claims as a class action, . . . is