Leshane v. Tracy VW, Inc.

Filed 4/29/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

NICOLE LESHANE et al., C093881

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. STKCVUOE2020006864) v.

TRACY VW, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, George J. Abdallah, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Fine, Boggs & Perkins, John P. Boggs and David J. Reese for Defendants and Appellants.

Whitehead Employment Law, Jacob N. Whitehead and Meghan N. Higday for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Plaintiffs Nicole Leshane, Steve Garner, Justin Prasad, Isaac Saldana, and Maurice West sued defendants Tracy VW, Inc. and RJ Gill Ventures, Inc. alleging several Labor Code violations. They did so on behalf of themselves as defendants’ former employees,

1

on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the state pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Private Attorneys General Act) (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.). After defendants filed a petition to compel arbitration, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint alleging violations of the Labor Code solely as representatives of the state under the Private Attorneys General Act. Defendants continued to seek arbitration of plaintiffs’ individual claims and dismissal of their class-wide claims pursuant to the arbitration agreements each plaintiff signed. Defendants reasoned “[p]laintiffs’ amendment of the Complaint to strip out [claims not pertaining to the Private Attorneys General Act] has not, without more, made the controversy go away. The elimination of claims for individual and class-wide damages from the Complaint is only an indication that Plaintiffs are not actively seeking that relief at this time and in this forum. There remains a controversy between the parties that that [sic] Plaintiffs, or any of them, could resuscitate at some point in the future. And Defendants have the absolute right to compel arbitration of such controversy . . . .” The trial court denied defendants’ petition to compel arbitration finding plaintiffs’ claim under the Private Attorneys General Act was not subject to arbitration citing Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348. Defendants appeal the trial court’s order. We affirm. DISCUSSION Defendants agree plaintiffs’ claim under the Private Attorneys General Act cannot be compelled to arbitration. They contend, however, that arbitration is still required to resolve the arbitrable individual claims plaintiffs raised in their original complaint which was dismissed without prejudice by filing the first amended complaint. Defendants urge