Garcia v. Pexco, LLC
Before: Ikola, Aronson, Thompson
Filed 4/24/17; pub. order 5/16/17 (see end of opn.)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
NARCISO GARCIA,
Plaintiff and Appellant, G052872
v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00742230)
PEXCO, LLC, OPINION
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gail Andrea Andler, Judge. Affirmed. Rastegar Law Group, Farzad Rastegar, Douglas W. Perlman, Joshua N. Lange for Plaintiff and Appellant. Klatte, Budensiek & Young-Agriesti, Ernest W. Klatte, III, and Yeun C. Yim for Defendant and Respondent. * * *
Narciso Garcia appeals from an order granting defendant Pexco, LLC’s (Pexco) motion to compel arbitration. Garcia opposed the motion on the ground Pexco was not a party to the arbitration agreement. We find Garcia is equitably estopped from denying Pexco’s right to arbitrate and the agency exception applies. We affirm the order of the trial court compelling arbitration between Pexco and Garcia.
FACTS
Temporary staffing company Real Time Staffing Services, LLC doing business as Select Staffing (Real Time) hired Garcia in 2011 as an hourly employee. Real Time then assigned Garcia to work for Pexco. As part of the hiring process with Real Time, Garcia filled out an employment application which included an arbitration agreement between Garica and Real Time. Pexco is not a signatory to the arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement provided that “any dispute” Real Time and Garcia could not resolve informally would be determined by binding arbitration. The arbitration agreement also specifically defined disputes subject to arbitration as including, but not limited to, those regarding wages, vacation pay, sick time pay, overtime pay, state and federal employment laws and regulation, including but not limited to, the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.), including the Equal Pay Act (29 U.S.C. § 206 et seq.). Garcia does not contend the arbitration agreement is invalid or unenforceable, and indeed he admits that his claims must be arbitrated with signatory Real Time.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)