Marenco v. DirecTV LLC
233 Cal. App. 4th 1409
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Marenco, a former 180 Connect employee, signed an employment arbitration agreement requiring arbitration of all employment-related disputes.
- DirecTV acquired 180 Connect and retained its employees, including Marenco, and assumed all rights and liabilities, including the arbitration agreement.
- The agreement prohibited class actions and representative or PAGA actions on behalf of a class or the public.
- Marenco sued DirecTV for wage and unfair competition claims; DirecTV moved to compel arbitration of his individual claims and stayed class claims.
- The trial court granted arbitration after rehearing in light of Concepcion, concluding DirecTV could enforce the agreement and that the class waiver was enforceable under FAA preemption of California unconscionability rules.
- During the pendency of the appeal, Iskanian held PAGA waivers are contrary to California public policy, with NLRA considerations addressed separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of nonsignatory to enforce arbitration | Marenco argues DirecTV cannot enforce the agreement. | DirecTV, as successor, may enforce under merger and equitable estoppel. | DirecTV has standing to enforce the arbitration agreement. |
| Class action waiver enforceability after Concepcion | Gentry-style state-law unconscionability applies to the waiver. | FAA preempts state unconscionability rules under Concepcion. | Class waiver enforceable under FAA as refined by Iskanian. |
| PAGA waiver and NLRA impact | PAGA waiver may violate public policy and NLRA. | PAGA waiver permissible if complies with FAA and Iskanian. | Iskanian controls; PAGA waivers invalid under state law. |
| Arbitration scope and merger proof | Inadequate proof that DirecTV is bound to arbitration due to nonsignatory status. | Acquisition and continued employment imply acceptance and continuation of terms. | DirecTV bound as successor; continued employment implied consent to terms. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Baycol Cases I & II, 51 Cal.4th 751 (Cal. 2011) (death knell doctrine for appealability of arbitration orders not satisfied here)
- Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (U.S.), LLC, 55 Cal.4th 223 (Cal. 2012) (binding arbitration requires consent; continued employment can imply acceptance)
- Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc., 84 Cal.App.4th 416 (Cal. App. 2000) (continued employment can establish implied acceptance of arbitration terms)
- 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court, 66 Cal.App.4th 1199 (Cal. App. 1998) (arbitration agreement validity can be established by implied acceptance)
- Boucher v. Alliance Title Co., Inc., 127 Cal.App.4th 262 (Cal. App. 2005) (nonsignatory may enforce arbitration when intertwined with contract rights)