Peters v. SDLA Courier Service CA2/6

Filed 5/14/24 Peters v. SDLA Courier Service CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

SAMANTHA PETERS, 2d Civil No. B330142 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2023- Plaintiff and Respondent, 00574362-CU-OE-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

SDLA COURIER SERVICE, INC.

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant SDLA Courier Service, Inc. appeals from an order denying its motion to compel respondent Samantha Peters to arbitrate wage and hour claims pursuant to an arbitration provision in her employment agreement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1294, subd. (a).) SDLA contends the trial court erred in finding that the transportation worker exemption of section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 U.S.C. § 1) applied, thereby precluding compelled arbitration. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY SDLA is a delivery company in Southern California and “makes local-only deliveries in California for its clients.” One of its clients is Amazon Logistics, Inc. SDLA drivers pick up packages at Amazon warehouses in California and deliver them locally to customers. Peters worked for SDLA from September 2018 to July 2019. She was hired as a delivery driver and also worked as a dispatcher.1 She, like other SDLA delivery drivers, only picked up and delivered packages within California. When Peters was hired, she signed a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims (Agreement). The Agreement requires that the employee and employer arbitrate all claims or controversies. It states: “[T]he Company is engaged in transactions involving interstate commerce and . . . my employment involves such commerce. As such, I acknowledge that this Agreement is subject to the Federal Arbitration Act.” Peters filed a lawsuit against SDLA, asserting individual and putative class claims for alleged wage and hour violations. SDLA moved to compel arbitration of her individual claims.2 SDLA argued that the FAA applied to the Agreement and that the transportation worker exemption under section 1 of the FAA