Bravo v. RADC Enterprises, Inc.

Filed 3/29/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

MEL R. BRAVO, B289506

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC678060 v.

RADC ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Holly E. Kendig, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Bleau Fox, Martin R. Fox, Megan A. Childress, and Elizabeth M. Martin, for Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of Ann A. Hull, Ann A. Hull and Joseph S. Socher, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

This employment case concerns a choice-of-law clause in an arbitration agreement. The trial court interpreted the clause to mean some but not all individual employment claims must be arbitrated. We conclude all of them must be arbitrated. The facts are simple. RADC Enterprises, Inc. hired Mel R. Bravo to manage a store. The parties signed a two-page arbitration agreement covering “all disputes” arising from the employment relationship. On page two, near the end, the agreement added a one-sentence choice-of-law provision: “This Agreement shall be governed by and shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.” After RADC fired him, Bravo sued RADC on individual employment claims, as well as on representative claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). RADC moved to stay Bravo’s PAGA claims and to compel arbitration on his individual claims. The trial court severed and stayed the PAGA claims. The court found RADC engaged in interstate commerce and thus the Federal Arbitration Act governed the agreement. But the court compelled arbitration for only three of Bravo’s nine individual claims, denying the arbitration motion on the remaining six individual claims. The logic was that, while the Federal Arbitration Act did apply, the choice-of-law sentence meant the parties wanted California law to govern their relationship. California Labor Code section 229 directs courts to disregard agreements to arbitrate wage claims, so the trial court declined to send Bravo’s remaining claims to arbitration. (Lab. Code, § 229.) On appeal, RADC correctly contends the choice-of-law provision did not mean the parties wanted to oust arbitration from their arbitration agreement. RADC rightly says the trial