Lile v. Mr. Wheels CA2/8

Filed 6/15/21 Lile v. Mr. Wheels CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

DAVID LILE, B303239

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV30636) v.

MR. WHEELS, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Richard J. Burdge, Jr., Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Fisher & Phillips, Christopher C. Hoffman, Megan E. Walker and Kevonna J. Ahmad for Defendant and Appellant.

Stevens & McMillan, Daniel P. Stevens, Heather K. McMillan and Lizeth Perales for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

Defendant and appellant Mr. Wheels, Inc., doing business as AutoNation Toyota Cerritos, appeals from the order denying its motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff and respondent David Lile’s individual claims. Plaintiff, defendant’s former employee, did not allege any class action, private attorney general or representative claims. We reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to vacate its order and enter a new order granting defendant’s motion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff worked for defendant from 1980 until his termination of employment in October 2018. After his termination, plaintiff sued defendant for disability discrimination, wrongful termination and various claims alleging violations of the Labor Code. Plaintiff did not allege any cause of action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) or any class or representative claims of any kind. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. In support of its motion, defendant attached a copy of a two-page agreement, signed by plaintiff in April 2013, titled “Arbitration Agreement.” Under the heading “Waiver of Right to Participate in Class Actions,” the agreement states: “Employee understands and acknowledges that the terms of this Agreement include a waiver of any substantive or procedural rights that Employee may have to bring or participate in an action on a class, collective, private attorney general, representative or other similar basis. This class action waiver does not take away or restrict the right of Employee to pursue Employee’s own claims, but only requires that any such claims be pursued in Employee’s own individual