Turner v. Corinthian Internat. Parking Services CA4/3

Filed 9/29/21 Turner v. Corinthian Internat. Parking Services CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL WAGE AND HOUR CASES G060405 ADRIAN TURNER, Plaintiff and Respondent, (JCCP No. 4886) v. OPINION CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL PARKING SERVICES INC. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Thomas E. Kuhnle, Judge. Affirmed. Berliner Cohen, Susan E. Bishop, and Thomas P. Murphy for Defendant and Appellant. Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky, Carolyn H. Cottrell, David C. Leimbach, Sean L. Litteral; Lawyers for Justice and Edwin Aiwazian for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Corinthian International Parking Services, Inc. appeals from denial of its motion to compel arbitration of coordinated wage-and-hour claims brought by its employees. The trial court denied defendant’s motion because it found the arbitration agreement unconscionable and because defendant failed to identify the class members who were parties to arbitration agreements. We conclude the trial court erred in finding the agreements unconscionable. However, we affirm because defendant failed to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement as to any particular class member or identifiable group of class members. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Adrian Turner is a former employee of defendant. Plaintiff sued defendant as the named plaintiff in a putative class action alleging various Labor Code violations in 2015. In 2016, defendant offered its employees, on a voluntary basis, an arbitration agreement containing a class action waiver. Some of its employees evidently signed the agreement, while some did not. After 2016, defendant required all new employees to sign an arbitration agreement containing a class action waiver. In 2019, after extensive litigation, including removal to federal court, remand back to state court, and various discovery motions, plaintiff moved for class certification. In opposing the motion, defendant asserted the existence of arbitration agreements with class action waivers. However, defendant offered no evidence of the arbitration agreements, and the trial court certified the class. Shortly after the certification order was issued, defendant moved to compel arbitration and enforce the class action waivers. Defendant included with its motion the declaration of defendant’s owner, authenticating unsigned examples of the arbitration agreements. The declaration also stated that “many” of defendant’s employees had signed the agreements. Defendant’s motion more specifically sought an order to “limit the Class Period for those employees who signed Arbitration Agreements . . . to claims that arose prior to the signing of binding Arbitration Agreements,” and to require “all