38 Cal. App. 5th 745
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Clifford, a former Quest/Dell employee, sued his employer for wage-and-hour violations and a UCL claim alleging misclassification as exempt (individual, not class action).
- Clifford completed employer "Code of Conduct" training and is assumed for appeal to have agreed to an arbitration agreement covering employment disputes, including UCL claims and injunctive relief.
- Quest moved to compel arbitration; trial court compelled arbitration of wage claims but denied arbitration of the UCL claim, citing Cruz.
- Trial court stayed the UCL claim pending arbitration of other claims; Quest appealed the denial as to the UCL cause of action.
- The Court of Appeal considered whether Broughton–Cruz precludes arbitration of Clifford's UCL claim, and whether his requested relief is "public" or "private."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clifford's UCL claim is arbitrable | UCL injunctive relief is public and inarbitrable under Broughton–Cruz; arbitration denial proper | Clifford's requested injunctive relief and restitution are private/severable and therefore arbitrable; alternatively FAA preempts Broughton–Cruz | Reversed: Clifford's UCL claim (private injunctive relief and restitution) is arbitrable and must be compelled to arbitration |
| Whether Broughton–Cruz bars arbitration of UCL restitution claims | (implicit) restitution tied to public interest — inarbitrable | Restitution is arbitrable under Cruz | Reaffirmed that Broughton–Cruz only bars public injunctive relief; restitution is arbitrable |
| Whether the injunctive relief sought is "public" | Injunction seeks relief benefiting public/others (references to other employees, competitors, public) and thus public | Complaint shows injunctive requests are individualized (to Plaintiff or similarly situated employees) — therefore private | The complaint seeks private injunctive relief (remedying individual wrongs), so Broughton–Cruz does not apply |
| Whether the court must sever/arbitrate part of the UCL claim if mixed relief sought | N/A below | At minimum, restitution (and any private injunctive relief) must be sent to arbitration | Court ordered the entire UCL claim (restitution + private injunctive relief) to arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc., 30 Cal.4th 303 (Cal. 2003) (UCL restitution arbitrable; public injunctive relief not arbitrable)
- Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans, 21 Cal.4th 1066 (Cal. 1999) (CLRA injunction serving public interest is not arbitrable)
- McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal.5th 945 (Cal. 2017) (distinguishes public vs. private injunctive relief; Broughton–Cruz rule scope)
- Kilgore v. KeyBank, Nat. Ass'n, 718 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) (Broughton–Cruz does not bar arbitration of private UCL injunctive claims)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (U.S. 2011) (FAA preemption principle for state rules that prohibit arbitration of particular claims)