Rimler v. Postmates Inc. CA1/5

Filed 12/9/20 Rimler v. Postmates Inc. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

JACOB RIMLER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, A156450 v. POSTMATES INC., (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-18-567868) Defendant and Appellant.

Postmates Inc. (Postmates) appeals the trial court’s order denying its petition to compel arbitration of representative claims under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, § 2699 et seq.). Postmates concedes our Supreme Court held in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian) that PAGA waivers are unenforceable, but argues subsequent United States Supreme Court cases have abrogated Iskanian. We join the numerous California Court of Appeal decisions that have uniformly rejected this argument and affirm the trial court’s order. BACKGROUND Jacob Rimler and Giovanni Jones (Plaintiffs) worked as couriers for Postmates. Plaintiffs accepted Postmates’ courier agreement, which includes an arbitration agreement and a waiver of the “right to have any dispute or

1

claim brought, heard or arbitrated as a representative action, or to participate in any representative action, and an arbitrator shall not have any authority to arbitrate a representative action.” Couriers may opt out of these provisions by submitting an opt out form within 30 days of accepting the courier agreement, but Plaintiffs did not do so. Plaintiffs sued Postmates, seeking PAGA penalties for alleged Labor Code violations. Postmates filed a petition to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied. This appeal followed. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 1294, subd. (a).) DISCUSSION1 PAGA “authorizes an employee to bring an action for civil penalties on behalf of the state against his or her employer for Labor Code violations committed against the employee and fellow employees, with most of the proceeds of that litigation going to the state.” (Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 360.) Iskanian concluded that a predispute PAGA waiver “is contrary to public policy and thus unenforceable under state law. [Citation.] The court then determined this conclusion was not preempted by the FAA [Federal Arbitration Act] because it found the FAA was intended to govern the resolution of ‘private disputes, whereas a PAGA action is a dispute between an employer and the state Agency.’ [Citation.] . . . The court stressed the nature of a PAGA claim as ‘ “ ‘fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect the public and not to benefit private parties’ ” ’ [citation] and that ‘ “an aggrieved employee’s action under the [PAGA] functions as a substitute for an action brought by the government itself” ’ [citation].” (Correia v. NB Baker Electric, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 602, 616 (Correia).)