Fugate
Fugate v. PeopleWhiz CA1/4
Opinion
Opinion
Filed 8/30/24 Fugate v. PeopleWhiz CA1/
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
RICK FUGATE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, A168050 v. (Alameda County Super. Ct.
PEOPLEWHIZ, INC.,
No. 23CV026212) Defendant and Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
After respondents Rick Fugate and Connie Debates filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging that appellant PeopleWhiz, Inc., violated the Automatic Renewal Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17600 et seq.;2 the ARL) and two other statutes, PeopleWhiz moved to compel arbitration. Relying on Sellers v. JustAnswer LLC (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 444 (Sellers), the trial court denied the motion, concluding that under the circumstances of the case, a
1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We do…