Miranda v. Anderson Enterprises, Inc.
241 Cal. App. 4th 196
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Miranda, a former employee of Anderson Enterprises, signed an arbitration policy requiring individual arbitration of employment claims and waiving class/collective actions.
- Miranda sued alleging wage-and-hour violations, including a representative PAGA claim and class claims.
- Respondents moved to dismiss class and representative claims, compel arbitration of Miranda's individual claims, and stay the court action.
- Trial court found the arbitration agreement enforceable, dismissed class and representative claims without prejudice, compelled arbitration of individual claims, and stayed proceedings.
- Miranda appealed only the dismissal of his representative PAGA claim, arguing Iskanian renders PAGA waivers unenforceable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's order is immediately appealable under the "death knell" doctrine | Miranda: order effectively forecloses representative PAGA recovery and thus is immediately appealable | Respondents: death knell applies only to class claims or to dismissals with prejudice | Court: death knell doctrine applies to representative PAGA claims here; order is appealable because no viable substitute representative likely exists and individual claims are economically impracticable to pursue |
| Whether arbitration agreement's waiver of representative PAGA claims is enforceable after Iskanian | Miranda: Iskanian controls; waiver of PAGA representative claims is contrary to public policy and unenforceable | Respondents: Iskanian wrongly decided; waiver should be enforceable | Court: Iskanian is binding; waiver of representative PAGA claims is unenforceable; reversal and remand directed |
Key Cases Cited
- Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (Cal. 2014) (arbitration agreements cannot bar representative PAGA actions; such waivers are contrary to public policy)
- In re Baycol Cases I & II, 51 Cal.4th 751 (Cal. 2011) (defines "death knell" doctrine and its two-prong test for appealability)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009) (explains PAGA's representative nature and distribution of penalties)
- Aleman v. Airtouch Cellular, 209 Cal.App.4th 556 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (applies death knell doctrine to orders foreclosing class litigation via arbitration)
- Munoz v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 238 Cal.App.4th 291 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (analyzes death knell in presence of surviving PAGA claims and the incentives to pursue individual appeals)