201 Cal. App. 4th 1363
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Sky Sports seeks a writ of mandate to vacate an order finding it waived its right to compel arbitration in a class action for rest-break violations.
- The class action defined a putative class of current and former licensed security guards; Hogan was the named class representative but did not sign the arbitration agreement.
- The company argued Hogan could not be an adequate class representative because his claims were not typical of the class with many signatories to arbitration agreements.
- The central question was whether the company waived its right to compel arbitration by waiting to raise the issue until after class certification.
- The court held that the requirements to compel arbitration under CCP 1281.2 were not satisfied until class certification, so the delay did not constitute waiver and the company could seek arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did delay in moving to compel arbitration before class certification waive the right? | Delay cannot waive; 1281.2 not satisfied until certification. | Waiver can occur due to significant delay in raising arbitration issue. | Delay does not constitute waiver; permit motion to compel arbitration. |
| Can a non-signatory putative class representative be compelled to arbitrate under 1281.2? | Hogan cannot be compelled; not a party to the arbitration agreement. | Class definition coercively binds issues; focus on class complaints. | A nonparty cannot be compelled to arbitrate under 1281.2; arbitration motion appropriate only for signatories. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mansouri v. Superior Court, 181 Cal.App.4th 633 (Cal.App.4th 2010) (arbitration 1281.2 requires written agreement and refusal to arbitrate)
- Lee v. Southern California University for Professional Studies, 148 Cal.App.4th 782 (Cal.App.4th 2007) (putative class representative not bound by arbitration when not party to agreement)
- Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc., 36 Cal.3d 171 (Cal. 1983) (peremptory writ appropriate where necessary to protect arbitration rights)
- Vernon v. Drexel Burnham & Co., 52 Cal.App.3d 706 (Cal.App. 1975) (class action cannot subvert contract rights)
- Lewis v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal. 1999) (grounds for peremptory writ in arbitration context)