Penney v. Prime Healthcare Services-San Dimas, LLC CA2/1

Filed 10/27/15 Penney v. Prime Healthcare Services—San Dimas, LLC CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

YOLANDA PENNEY, B257279

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC427326) v.

PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES— SAN DIMAS, LLC,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael L. Stern, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Reed Smith, Thomas E. Hill, Paula M. Mitchell, Mara D. Curtis for Defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Joseph Antonelli, Joseph Antonelli, Janelle C. Carney; Law Office of Kevin T. Barnes, Kevin T. Barnes, Gregg Lander for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________

SUMMARY Parties are litigants in an employment class action. Prime Healthcare Services— San Dimas LLC (San Dimas), the owner of San Dimas Community Hospital, appeals from an order granting plaintiff Yolanda Penney’s motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting San Dimas from implementing an arbitration program.1 We previously stayed the portion of the injunction purporting to restrain San Dimas from pursuing arbitration or arbitration agreements with individuals who were not class members or with respect to claims that were unrelated to the instant litigation, after San Dimas filed a petition for a writ of supersedeas with this Court. (Penny v. Prime Healthcare Services—San Dimas, LLC (Aug. 6, 2014, B257279).) We now reverse the grant of the preliminary injunction motion. BACKGROUND This litigation began in December 2009, when Penney filed a complaint asserting various wage and hour claims on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against San Dimas, as well as violation of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, §§ 2698-2699) (PAGA). In October 2012, this Court reversed the trial court’s denial of class certification with respect to one sub-class (the paystub class), but affirmed the remainder of the denial. (Penny v. San Dimas Community Hospital (Oct. 30, 2012, B235088).) The trial court certified the paystub class on February 8, 2013, and on February 28, 2013, class members were notified via mail. Class members were given until April 15, 2013, to opt out of the class. Almost a year later, on March 3, 2014, San Dimas distributed a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate (MAA) along with a cover memorandum to all employees. The cover memorandum stated that all employees—newly hired and existing—would be required to sign the MAA. The MAA, inter alia, stated that the parties “may bring and pursue claims against the other only in their individual capacities, and may not bring, pursue, or act as a plaintiff or class member, in any purported class or collective proceeding” and neither