Elijahjuan v. Superior Court
210 Cal. App. 4th 15
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Petitioners allege misclassification as independent contractors, seeking Labor Code, UCL, and misrepresentation relief.
- Dispute concerns employee rights cannot be derived from the contract terms with independent contractors.
- Agreements contain dispute resolution provisions: arbitration for disputes arising from application or interpretation of the Agreements.
- Trial court granted arbitration for all claims except some Labor Code claims, which were severed and stayed.
- Issue on appeal is whether the arbitration provision covers petitioners’ Labor Code claims and related relief.
- Court treats appeal from nonappealable order as petition for writ of mandate and grants writ to reverse arbitration order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the arbitration clause cover the Labor Code claims? | petitioners argue claims arise extracontractually and Labor Code governs, not the Agreements. | real parties contend the Agreement governs all disputes about application or interpretation, including misclassification. | Arbitration did not cover Labor Code claims; order reversed. |
| Are petitioners exempt from arbitration under FAA section 1 as transportation workers/employees? | petitions are employees entitled to Labor Code protections; FAA exemption may apply. | petitioners are independent contractors, not employees; exemption does not apply. | Exemption analysis resolved with independent contractor status; FAA exemption not binding to compel arbitration here. |
| Should the court decide unconscionability of the arbitration agreements before arbitration? | unconscionability challenges should be decided by the trial court. | Concepcion preempts state unconscionability defense to arbitration for this case. | Concepcion does not fully preempt; unconscionability defenses must be decided by trial court; remand warranted. |
| Is there any basis for classwide arbitration? | agreements imply class treatment; classwide arbitration should be allowed. | agreements silent on class arbitration; no implied agreement to class arbitration. | No classwide arbitration; agreements silent on class treatment; individual arbitration only. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83 (2000) (arb. policy and unconscionability factors in California)
- Narayan v. EGL, Inc., 616 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2010) (Labor Code claims not arising out of contract; contract may prove/disprove claims)
- Hoover v. American Income Life Ins. Co., 206 Cal.App.4th 1193 (2012) (statutory Labor Code claims outside scope of contract arbitration)
- Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California, 83 Cal.App.4th 677 (2000) (tort claims arising under contract may fall within broad arbitration clause)
- Berman v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc., 44 Cal.App.3d 999 (1975) (broad contract language may cover disputes linked to contract relationship)
- Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) (class arbitration requires explicit agreement)