{"id":3172,"date":"2024-10-14T23:36:46","date_gmt":"2024-10-14T23:36:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/protection.abogadosnow.com\/appellate-victories\/"},"modified":"2024-12-03T19:09:48","modified_gmt":"2024-12-03T19:09:48","slug":"appellate-victories","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.protectionlawgroup.com\/es\/appellate-victories\/","title":{"rendered":"victorias en apelaci\u00f3n"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

PLG Appellate Wins<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

When a question arises that must be settled by the Court of Appeal, PLG is ready to protect your rights! As highlighted below, PLG has numerous victories which create and establish law benefitting its clients and public in general.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

STATE COURT APPELLATE WINS<\/strong><\/p>

  1. Tauran Collie v. The Icee Company, et al<\/em><\/a>.<\/em>, Court of Appeal Case No. E071654, 4th Appellate District, Division 2, September 22, 2020.<\/strong><\/li><\/ol>

    In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny Defendant Companies\u2019 motion to compel arbitration of former employee Plaintiff\u2019s claims under PAGA, holding that an employee cannot be compelled to arbitrate a PAGA cause of action on the basis of a predispute arbitration agreement. \u201cIn sum, the [trial] court properly denied Icee\u2019s motion to compel arbitration of Collie\u2019s PAGA action. The state\u2014the real party in interest\u2014is not bound by Collie\u2019s predispute agreement to arbitrate.\u201d Id<\/em>. at 8.<\/p>

    1. Jesus Cordova v. The Icee Company, et al<\/em><\/a>.<\/em>, Court of Appeal Case No. E071885, 4th Appellate District, Division 2, September 22, 2020<\/strong><\/li><\/ol>

      Simultaneously with the Collie <\/em>decision (above), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny Icee\u2019s motion to compel arbitration of former employee Plaintiff\u2019s claims under PAGA, holding that the state, as the real party in interest, could not be bound by the Plaintiff Cordova\u2019s predispute arbitration agreement. Since he was \u201cmerely acting as the state\u2019s proxy, it [was] immaterial that Cordova\u2019s claims would otherwise be subject to arbitration, had he brought claims other than under PAGA.\u201d Id<\/em>. at 3-4.<\/p>

      1. Aguirre v. Prudential Overall Supply, et al<\/em><\/a>.<\/em>, Court of Appeal Case No. G057980, 4th Appellate District, Division 3, December 28, 2020<\/strong><\/li><\/ol>

        Affirming the trial court\u2019s order denying Defendant company\u2019s motion to compel arbitration of former employee Plaintiff\u2019s complaint for wage and hour violations under PAGA, the Court of Appeal found that: (1) the Parties did not agree to arbitrate Plaintiff\u2019s PAGA claims; (2) even if the Parties had agreed to arbitrate Plaintiff\u2019s PAGA claims, such an agreement was unenforceable under California law; and (3) Plaintiff\u2019s PAGA claims were not subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (\u201cFAA\u201d).<\/p>

        1. Woodie v. AER Electronics, et al<\/em><\/a>.<\/em>, Court of Appeal Case No. A159317, 1st Appellate District, Division 3, March 22, 2021<\/strong><\/li><\/ol>

          The Court of Appeal for the 1st Appellate District reversed the order of the trial court, holding that the arbitration agreement Defendant company sought to enforce against former employee Plaintiff was void and unenforceable due to its purported waiver of Plaintiff’s right to bring a representative action under PAGA. The arbitration agreement at issue was determined to have a nonseverable class action waiver that, by its plain language, encompassed representative claims under PAGA that cannot be waived under California law. The Appellate Court remanded the case, directing the superior court to enter a new order granting Plaintiff\u2019s motion to declare the arbitration agreement void and unenforceable.<\/p>

          1. Herrera v. Centre for Neuro Skills, et al<\/em><\/a>.<\/em>, Court of Appeal Case No. F085587, 5th Appellate District, May 13, 2024<\/strong><\/li><\/ol>

            The Court of Appeal for the 5th Appellate District affirmed the trial court\u2019s order denying Defendant company\u2019s motion to compel arbitration of former employee Plaintiff\u2019s claims, holding that Defendant failed to conclusively establish that Plaintiff had electronically signed the arbitration agreement at issue. While Defendant met its initial burden of demonstrating the existence of a purported agreement to arbitrate, Plaintiff also met her burden of production sufficiently challenging the notion that she had accepted the agreement. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal determined that the \u201cevidence was not of such a character and weight as to leave no room for judicial determination that [defendants] failed to establish that [Herrera] electronically signed the Contract.<\/p>

            1. Campbell v. Sunshine Behavioral Health, LLC<\/em><\/a>, Court of Appeal Case No. G062886, 4th Appellate District, Division 3, September 25, 2024<\/strong><\/li><\/ol>

              Division 3 of the Court of Appeal for the 4th Appellate District affirmed the trial court\u2019s order that Defendant Company had waived the right to compel arbitration of former employee Plaintiff\u2019s class claims. In its published opinion, the Court concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting the trial court\u2019s determination that Defendant\u2019s conduct waived the right to arbitrate. Specifically, Defendant\u2019s participation in litigation (including discovery), its eventual entrance into a joint stipulation to mediate, and its ultimate delay in filing its petition to compel arbitration were inconsistent with its claimed right to arbitrate. The Court also granted Plaintiff costs on appeal.<\/p>

              1. Gutierrez Sancez, et al. v. River Valley Farms, LLC, et al.<\/em><\/a>, Court of Appeal Case No. H051472, 6th Appellate District, October 8, 2024<\/strong><\/li><\/ol>

                The Court of Appeal for the 6th Appellate District affirmed the trial court\u2019s partial denial of Defendant Companies\u2019 motion to compel arbitration of former employee Plaintiffs\u2019 wage and hour claims spanning discrete periods of seasonal employment. The Court agreed that, while Plaintiffs were bound by arbitration agreements, these arbitration agreements only covered the season of employment during which they were executed, allowing Plaintiffs to continue to litigate their claims for the periods of employment during which they had not executed arbitration agreements.<\/p>

                FEDERAL APPELLATE WINS<\/strong><\/p>

                1. Adams v. West Marine Products, Inc.<\/em><\/a>, United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 20-15444, May 13, 2020<\/strong><\/li><\/ol>

                  The Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court\u2019s order remanding former employee Plaintiff\u2019s putative class action to state court after Defendant Company initially removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (\u201cCAFA\u201d), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1332(d). The three judge panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it chose to decline jurisdiction under the home state exception to CAFA, since the district court did not err in finding that it was more likely than not that greater than one-third of the putative class and the primary defendants were citizens of California.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

                  \n\t\t\t\t
                  \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t