Quintero v. Dolgen California, LLC CA5

Filed 2/10/23 Quintero v. Dolgen California, LLC CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JAZMINE QUINTERO, F083769 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCU287566) v.

DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT * APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Nathan D. Ide, Judge. McGuire Woods and Sabrina A. Beldner for Defendant and Appellant. Potter Handy, Mark D. Potter, and James Michael Treglio for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Plaintiff Jazmine Quintero sued her former employer, Dolgen California, LLC (Dollar General), to recover civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.)1 for various Labor Code violations suffered by

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J. 1 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Labor Code.

her or by other employees. Dollar General moved to compel arbitration, which the superior court denied. Based on Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. ___ [142 S.Ct. 1906] (Viking River) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA; 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.), we conclude the parties’ agreement requires arbitration of plaintiff’s PAGA claims that seek to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations suffered by plaintiff. On an issue of California law currently pending before the California Supreme Court, we conclude plaintiff’s PAGA claims that seek to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations suffered by employees other than plaintiff may be pursued by plaintiff in the superior court. Therefore, the order denying Dollar General’s motion to compel arbitration is reversed in part and affirmed in part. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS In December 2019, plaintiff applied for employment with Dolgen California, LLC (Dollar General), a wholly owned subsidiary of Dollar General Corporation. She was employed by Dollar General from December 14, 2019, until January 4, 2021, when she resigned. As part of the application and hiring process, plaintiff accessed Dollar General’s web-based Express Hiring system, which allows persons to receive, review, and acknowledge documents related to their hiring and employment. On December 5, 2019, plaintiff electronically signed Dollar General’s arbitration agreement. She also marked the box stating she agreed to its terms and understood that by checking the box, both Dollar General and she would be bound by the arbitration agreement’s terms. The agreement also contained an opt-out provision. Plaintiff did not opt out. The arbitration agreement stated Dollar General “has a process for resolving employment related legal disputes with employees that involves binding arbitration.” It also stated: