Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
Decision Date | 19 October 2011 |
Docket Number | No. B222689.,B222689. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Terri BROWN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Reed Smith, Los Angeles, Linda S. Husar, and Steven B. Katz for Defendants and Appellants.
Initiative Legal Group, Los Angeles, Gene Williams, Mark P. Pifko, and Arnab Banerjee for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Spiro Moss, H. Scott Leviant, Santa Barbara, Dennis F. Moss, Los Angeles, Gregory N. Karasik, J. Mark Moore; Arbogast & Berns and David M. Arbogast, Los Angeles, for Amicus Curiae Consumer Attorneys of California.
Plaintiff and respondent Terri Brown (plaintiff) brought a class action and representative action under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (the PAGA) 1 against her employers, defendants and appellants Ralphs Grocery Company and The Kroger Co. (defendants), for alleged violations of the Labor Code. Defendants appeal from the trial court's order denying their petition to compel plaintiff to submit her individual causes of action to arbitration as required under her employment agreement.
We hold that the trial court erred in ruling that under Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, 165 P.3d 556( Gentry ), the class action waiver provision 2 in plaintiff's employment agreement was unenforceable because that ruling was not supported by substantial evidence. We also hold that the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion et ux. (2011) ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 ( AT & T ), holding that California decisional law invalidating class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act ( 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (FAA)), does not apply to representative actions under the PAGA, and thus the trial court correctly ruled that the waiver of plaintiff's right to pursue a representative action under the PAGA was not enforceable under California law. We remand the case for the trial court to determine whether to sever the unenforceable provision in the arbitration agreement waiving plaintiff's right to pursue a PAGA representative action or whether to refuse to enforce the entire arbitration agreement or parts thereof.
Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting as a class action four Labor Code violations and a violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. based on the alleged Labor Code violations. Plaintiff also alleged that she had satisfied all the administrative prerequisites to pursuing a representative action under the PAGA and sought civil penalties pursuant to that statute.
Defendants responded to the complaint by filing a petition to compel arbitration. The petition was supported by a copy of plaintiff's employment application, which included an acknowledgement of and agreement to defendants' Mediation and Binding Arbitration Policy (arbitration policy). The petition also included a copy of the arbitration policy that was incorporatedby reference in the employment application. The arbitration policy provided that, except for excluded disputes,3 “[t]his Arbitration Policy applies to any and all employment-related disputes that exist or arise between Employees and Ralphs [Grocery Company] (or any of them) that would constitute cognizable claims or causes of action in a federal, state or local court or agency under applicable federal, state or local laws (referred to in this Arbitration Policy as ‘Covered Disputes').” The arbitration policy further provided that
Plaintiff opposed the petition to compel arbitration, arguing that the class action waiver provision was “unconscionable” under Gentry, supra, 42 Cal.4th 443, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, 165 P.3d 556; that the waiver of plaintiff's right to pursue a representative action for civil penalties under the PAGA was also unenforceable; and that the presence of those two unconscionable provisions in the arbitration agreement made that agreement unenforceable in its entirety. Plaintiff supported her opposition with a declaration from her attorney stating that plaintiff had been employed by defendants as a security guard since 2005, had filed a class action alleging certain Labor Code violations, and had also asserted a representative action under the PAGA. Plaintiff's attorney further stated that defendants had filed a petition to compel arbitration and that a copy of the arbitration agreement upon which the petition was based was attached to the declaration as an exhibit. Defendants argued in reply that plaintiff had failed to carry her evidentiary burden under the four-factor test established in Gentry for invalidating a class action waiver provision, that plaintiff's arguments based on Gentry were preempted under the FAA, and that plaintiff's arguments under the PAGA and Franco v. Athens Disposal Co., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1277, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 539( Franco ) were incorrect.
The trial court determined that the arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable and, because of the invalidity of the class action and the PAGA waivers, substantively unconscionable. The trial court said,
Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal. After the submission of the case, the United States Supreme Court decided AT & T, supra, 131 S.Ct. 1740. By a five to four majority, the court held that the California Supreme Court's rule in Discover Bank v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 148, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 113 P.3d 1100( Discover Bank )—that class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements may be unenforceable or unconscionable—is preempted by the FAA. Upon our request, the parties submitted additional briefing on the applicability and effect of the AT & T decision.
Defendants contend that plaintiff had the evidentiary burden to establish the four factors required under Gentry, supra, 42 Cal.4th 443, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, 165 P.3d 556 to invalidate a class action waiver provision, but failed to do so. Plaintiff counters that Gentry does not require an evidentiary showing and that the trial court adequately considered the Gentry factors in making its decision to invalidate the class action waiver in an employment case.
In Gentry, supra, 42 Cal.4th 443, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, 165 P.3d 556, the court held as follows: ( Id. at pp. 463–464, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, 165 P.3d 556.) The court in Gentry went on to state expressly that “such [class action] waivers will only be invalidated after the proper factual showing, as discussed above.” ( Id. at p. 466, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, 165 P.3d 556, italics added.)
“ ‘ ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Luchini v. Carmax, Inc.
...representative action equates "to his inability to bring a PAGA claim at all." Mr. Luchini points to Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 197 Cal.App.4th 489, 502, 503, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 854 (2011), cert. denied, __U.S. _, 132 S.Ct. 1910 (2012), where the California Court of Appeal commented:. . . a ......
-
Mills v. Facility Solutions Grp., Inc.
...court has found a PAGA waiver in an arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable. (See Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 489, 496, 503-504, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 854 [affirming trial court order denying motion to compel arbitration because PAGA waiver in employment agree......
-
Elijahjuan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cnty.
...and obviously differs from one encompassing “any and all employment-related disputes.” (See, e.g., Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 489, 495, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 854.)5 In short, because the parties did not agree to arbitrate the dispute in this case, the order compelling arbi......
-
Hoover v. Am. Income Life Ins. Co.
...v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 303, 315–316, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 58, 66 P.3d 1157;Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at pp. 500–501, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 854.) In summary, Hoover's dispute with AIL does not arise under the agent contract or the CBA. Regardless ......
-
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Bows To U.S. Supreme Court On Class Action Waivers In Arbitration Agreements
...the Supreme Court, the SJC may have signaled that the fight is coming to an end. Footnotes 1 See, e.g., Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 128 Cal. Rptr. 3d 854 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011), rev. denied, 2011 Cal. LEXIS 10809 (Oct. 19, 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1910 (2012); Figueroa v. THI of New M......
-
Class Action Arbitration Waiver Rejected By Federal Appellate Court
...Fin. Servs., Inc., 259 P.3d 803 (N.M. 2011)); claims under California's Private Attorney General Act (Brown v. Ralph's Grocery Co., 197 Cal. App. 4th 489 (2011); Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of Cal., Inc., 2011 WL 4595249 (C.D. Cal. 2011)); and claims for public injunctive relief under state unfa......
-
Titans Clash And Uncertainty Abounds - The Ongoing Turmoil Regarding Enforceability Of Mandatory Employment Arbitration Agreements In California
...agreements may require waiver of representative actions involving the remedy of "public wrongs." In Brown v. Ralphs Grocery, 197 Cal. App. 4th 489 (2011), a California appellate court addressed whether an arbitration agreement may require waiver of representative Private Attorney General Ac......
-
California Appellate Court Issues Major Decision On Enforceability Of Arbitration Agreements In Employment Context
...Court of Appeal likewise refused to follow the decision of a divided panel from a different district in Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 128 Cal. Rptr. 3d 854 (2011). The majority in Brown held that claims under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for civil penalties on behalf of all affect......
-
Update on California State Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law and Federal and State Procedural Law
...and thus not subject to a mandatory class arbitration waiver, was no longer valid after Concepcion (cf. Brown v. Ralph's Grocery Co., 197 Cal.App.4th 489 (2011) (2nd DCA, Div. 5); Kinecta Alternative Financial Services, Inc. v. Superior Court, 205 Cal.App.4th 506 (2012) (2nd DCA, Div. 3) (a......
-
Class Actions
...(2007) 42 Cal.4th 443.29. (2018) Cal.App.5th 1096.30. Iskanian v CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348.31. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 489.32. Id.33. Khan v. Dunn-Edwards Corp. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 804.34. Id. at 809.35. Id.36. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 745.37. To name a few: Wha......