Villanueva v. Rabobank CA4/1

Filed 8/18/20 Villanueva v. Rabobank CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

JOE VILLANUEVA, etc., D075455

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2018- 00028998-CU-BT-CTL) RABOBANK, N.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kenneth J. Medel, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Duane Morris, Paul J. Killion, Cyndie M. Chang, and Christine C. Ross for Defendant and Appellant. Kaliel, Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Sophia Goren Gold; Hindman, Thomas Jesse Hindman; Carlson Lynch, Todd D. Carpenter and Scott G. Braden for Plaintiff and Respondent. Plaintiff Joe Villanueva (Plaintiff) and defendant Rabobank, N.A. (Defendant) have stipulated that the superior court’s November 19, 2018 order denying Defendant’s petition to compel arbitration be reversed and

remanded with directions. As we explain, the stipulation complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) (section 128(a)(8)), and for that reason we will reverse the order. I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Alleging causes of action for breach of contract and unfair business practices, Plaintiff filed the underlying action as “a nationwide class action seeking damages and other relief from [Defendant] for its deceptive assessment and collection of so-called continued overdraft fees from its customers in violation of [Defendant’s] standardized account agreement . . . (‘Deposit Agreement’).” Defendant petitioned to compel arbitration. The Deposit Agreement includes a “Dispute Resolution and Arbitration” provision (Arbitration Provision), which applies to “[a]ll claims . . . , regardless of legal theory and remedy sought.” Among other terms, the Arbitration Provision delegates to the arbitrator all issues, including the interpretation and application of the provision: “All issues shall be for the arbitrator to decide, including the scope of this [Arbitration] Provision” (delegation clause, italics added). The Arbitration Provision also provides that, because the Deposit Agreement concerns interstate commerce, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA; 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) governs the ability to arbitrate. Plaintiff opposed the petition, arguing that the Arbitration Provision is unenforceable. Plaintiff principally argued that, because the complaint sought “public injunctive relief” and the Arbitration Provision contains a waiver of “public injunctive relief,” the entire provision is void, and none of Plaintiff’s claims are subject to arbitration under the Arbitration Provision. (Citing and quoting McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945 (McGill).)