Sprunk v. Prisma LLC
B268755
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 23, 2017Background
- Sprunk sued Plan B (Prisma LLC) in a wage-and-hour putative class action alleging dancers were misclassified as independent contractors and denied wages/benefits and tips.
- All class members signed entertainer contracts with arbitration clauses; two versions existed (pre-July 2011 silent on class arbitration; later version contained an express class-waiver).
- Plan B initially filed a petition to compel individual arbitration of Sprunk’s claims in Jan 2012, then withdrew the petition in Sept 2012 and continued litigating (answer, discovery, and later a dismissed cross-complaint).
- Sprunk moved for class certification (filed Sept 2014); the trial court certified the class on April 24, 2015.
- After certification, Plan B moved (Aug 2015) to compel individual arbitration as to absent class members; the trial court denied the motion, finding Plan B had waived arbitration by unreasonably delaying and seeking strategic advantage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Plan B waive the right to compel arbitration against absent class members by withdrawing its earlier motion to compel arbitration against the named plaintiff and litigating for years? | Sprunk: Plan B waived arbitration by litigating (discovery, class-certification briefing) after withdrawing its petition and before seeking arbitration against the class. | Plan B: Unnamed class members were not parties before certification, so delay before class certification cannot be the basis for waiver; it withdrew earlier motion due to legal uncertainty (risk of classwide arbitration). | Court: Affirmed trial court — Plan B waived arbitration. The court may consider Plan B’s delay in withdrawing its motion against Sprunk because compelling arbitration of Sprunk would likely have settled the judicial forum question; Plan B’s multi-year, strategic delay supported waiver. |
| Was Plan B’s failure to move earlier excused by the “futility” rule given unsettled law on class arbitration pre-Iskanian? | Sprunk: Futility did not excuse delay because Concepcion, Stolt-Nielsen, and appellate decisions already cast doubt on Gentry/Horton; Plan B could have moved earlier. | Plan B: Withdrew because then-existing law made individual arbitration unlikely; Iskanian later clarified the law, so delay was reasonable. | Court: Futility did not excuse Plan B’s delay. The state of the law did not render earlier motions futile; many precedents suggested arbitration could be enforced and Iskanian arrived long before Plan B refiled its motions. |
| Did Plan B supply sufficient evidence that unnamed class members signed arbitration agreements? | Sprunk: Plan B failed to attach signed agreements for unnamed members — insufficient authentication. | Plan B: Submitted exemplar agreements and declarations (including manager’s statement that each class member signed one of the forms). | Court: Evidence was sufficient under Cal. R. Ct. 3.1330 where authenticity was not disputed; trial court properly considered the declarations. |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (FAA preempts state rules that effectively prohibit class-action waivers in arbitration agreements)
- Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) (class arbitration cannot be imposed absent contractual basis for class arbitration)
- Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014) (California Supreme Court: Concepcion invalidated Gentry; futility-based withdrawal of arbitration motion may excuse waiver in certain circumstances)
- St. Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare of California, 31 Cal.4th 1187 (2003) (factors for determining waiver of arbitration)
- Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 443 (2007) (pre-Concepcion rule allowing denial of class-waiver enforcement where class arbitration is necessary to vindicate statutory rights)