Jasso v. Money Mart Express, Inc.
879 F. Supp. 2d 1038
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Jasso filed a California wage-and-hour class action; Dollar removed it to federal court under CAFA; court must decide arbitration issue.
- Plaintiff was employed by a Dollar subsidiary from May 2008 to Dec 2009 as a manager; she signed an Employee Acknowledgement and a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims on May 14, 2008.
- Handbook describes a dispute-resolution process, with arbitration as the final step for legally protected rights; the arbitration process is under AAA rules with employer-paid arbitration costs.
- Arbitration Agreement includes a class action waiver prohibiting representative or class arbitration; the agreement states mutual consent to arbitrate all claims.
- Court’s standard: determine (1) existence of an agreement, (2) scope of the agreement, and (3) enforceability; if affirmative, enforce arbitration and stay court action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the class action waiver enforceable under Concepcion? | Gentry-style concerns render waiver unenforceable. | Concepcion overruled Discover Bank; waiver valid. | Class waiver enforceable under Concepcion. |
| Does D.R. Horton NLRA analysis defeat FAA enforcement here? | NLRA rights override FAA in employment context. | FAA controls; no override language in NLRA; no conflict. | FAA governs; enforce arbitration per terms. |
| Does injunctive/public-relief claims preclude arbitration? | Public injunctive relief seeks to vindicate unwaivable rights. | No actual public injunctive relief claim pleaded; issue irrelevant. | Not applicable; no conflict present. |
| Is the arbitration agreement unconscionable overall? | Procedural/adhesive formation and unilateral terms. | Arbitration terms are mutual; no substantial unconscionability. | Limited procedural unconscionability; not enough to negate validity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 2005) (California unconscionability rule over class waivers pre-Concepcion)
- Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (U.S. 2011) (FAA preempts state Discover Bank rule; enforce arbitration per terms)
- Amex Merchants Litigation (Amex II), 667 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2012) (class waiver not per se enforceable; pre-Concepcion factors considered)
- Coneff v. AT&T Corp., 673 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2012) (Concepcion controls; cannot override FAA; enforce terms)
- CompuCredit v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665 (U.S. 2012) (FAA enforced unless Congress overrides; no override here)
- Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 443 (Cal. 2007) (Public policy concerns for class actions in employment context)
- Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000) (Sets unconscionability framework (procedural/substantive))