Kempler v. CLS Transportation CA2/2

Filed 11/2/15 Kempler v. CLS Transportation CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

GREG KEMPLER et al., B256997

Plaintiff and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC473931) v.

CLS TRANSPORTATION LOS ANGELES et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert L. Hess, Judge. Affirmed.

Fox Rothschild, David F. Faustman, Yesenia M. Gallegos, Cristina K. Armstrong; Cole Schotz, Leo V. Leyva for Defendants and Appellants.

Capstone Law, Raul Perez, Glenna Danas, Ryan H. Wu; Initiative Legal Group, Mónica Balderrama for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

___________________________________________________

Appellants seek to vacate arbitration awards rendered by three separate arbitrators, arguing that the arbitrators exceeded their authority by awarding excessive attorney fees. We find that the arbitrators acted within the scope of their authority, and we have no basis to question the arbitrators’ reasoning or factual conclusions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment confirming the arbitration awards. BACKGROUND Respondents are former employees of CLS Transportation of Los Angeles LLC (CLS). In August 2006, Arshavir Iskanian filed a class action lawsuit against CLS on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, alleging that CLS failed to pay overtime, provide meal and rest breaks, reimburse business expenses, provide accurate and complete wage statements, and pay final wages in a timely manner. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 361 (Iskanian).) Based on an arbitration agreement signed by Iskanian and other employees, CLS moved to compel arbitration, and the trial court granted the motion in March 2007. (Ibid.) Shortly after, our Supreme Court decided, in Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 (Gentry), that class waiver provisions in arbitration agreements were unenforceable under certain circumstances. In light of Gentry, we directed the trial court to reconsider its order granting the motion to compel arbitration and dismissing class claims. On remand, CLS withdrew its motion to compel arbitration, and the parties litigated the case. (Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th 348, 361.) After conducting discovery, Iskanian moved for class certification, and in October 2009, the trial court granted Iskanian’s motion. (Ibid.) Most, if not all, respondents in this matter were members of the Iskanian certified class. On April 27, 2011, the United States Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740]. Soon after, CLS renewed its motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the class claims, arguing that Concepcion was new law that overruled Gentry. The trial court granted CLS’s motion in June 2011, dismissing class claims and ordering the case to individual arbitration. (Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th 348, 361.) The California Supreme Court eventually affirmed most aspects of that order