Young v. REMX

Filed 7/26/16 Modified and certified for publication 8/17/16 (order attached)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

VANESSA YOUNG, Plaintiff and Appellant, A143786 v. REMX, INC., et al., (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-14-538409) Defendants and Respondents.

In this wage and hour lawsuit, plaintiff Vanessa Young appeals from the trial court’s order compelling arbitration of her individual claims, dismissing her class claims, bifurcating her representative claim pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.), and staying the PAGA claim pending completion of the arbitration on her individual claims. We conclude the order is nonappealable, and dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s operative first amended complaint (complaint) alleges that, after her employment with defendants terminated, defendants failed to timely pay her all of her final wages. The complaint asserts, on behalf of plaintiff and a putative class, a cause of action for this failure under Labor Code sections 201 through 203. The complaint also

1

asserts a representative PAGA claim seeking civil penalties on behalf of plaintiff and other aggrieved employees.1 Defendants filed a motion to compel individual arbitration, dismiss plaintiff’s class claims, and bifurcate and stay the PAGA claim. In support of the motion, defendants submitted an arbitration agreement signed by plaintiff. The arbitration agreement provided any disputes “arising out of or relating to my employment or the termination of my employment” will be submitted to arbitration. The agreement further provided “[a]ny such claims must be submitted on an individual basis only and I hereby waive the right to bring or join any type of collective or class claim in arbitration, in any court, or in any other forum.” Defendants conceded in their motion that under Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, the arbitration agreement cannot require plaintiff to waive her representative PAGA claim, and therefore asked the court to bifurcate and stay that claim. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing (1) the arbitration agreement only identifies a nonparty entity called RXOS, and therefore does not extend to disputes with defendants; (2) the agreement is unenforceable; and (3) the agreement is unconscionable. In reply, defendants noted the arbitration agreement, by its terms, applies to plaintiff and her “Employer.” Although Employer is not defined in the agreement, defendants argued it is undisputed that they were plaintiff’s employer and, in any event, RXOS is a division of defendants. Defendants also argued the agreement was enforceable and not unconscionable. The trial court granted defendants’ motion. The order compelled arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claim, dismissed the class claims, bifurcated the representative