Padilla v. Partners Personnel Management Services CA2/4

Filed 9/19/23 Padilla v. Partners Personnel Management Services CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

TRINIDAD PADILLA, B318349 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. 21STCV03616) PARTNERS PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David S. Cunningham, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Craig Nickerson, Darin R. Webb, Matthew G. Kleiner and Andrea K. Williams for Defendant and Appellant. Mahoney Law Group, Katherine J. Odenbreit and Raleigh P. Dixon for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Trinidad Padilla filed a putative class action against Partners Personnel-Management Services, LLC (Partners Personnel), and Vanitas Manufacturers, Inc. dba Cal-Western Manufacturers (Vanitas), alleging various wage and hour claims under the Labor Code arising out of his employment. In response, Partners Personnel moved to compel arbitration, strike the class claims, and dismiss or stay the litigation based on a document Padilla signed entitled “Partners Personnel Dispute Arbitration and Resolution Program” (the arbitration agreement). The trial court denied the petition on the sole basis that Partners Personnel failed to meet its burden to show mutual assent because the arbitration agreement did not define “Company” and “Employee.”1 We conclude it is possible to identify the parties to the agreement (see Civ. Code, § 1558) based on the language of the arbitration agreement as a whole, the allegations in Padilla’s complaint, and uncontradicted evidence submitted in support of Partners Personnel’s petition. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying the petition, and remand the matter to the trial court for consideration of the issues raised by the parties in support of and in opposition to the petition, but not reached by the trial court.

1 Vanitas is not a party to this appeal. According to Partners Personnel’s petition, Vanitas filed a joinder to the petition. Vanita’s joinder is not in the record on appeal, however.