Pich

Pich v. Laseraway CA2/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 2025B331219California1,751 words

Opinion

Opinion

INTRODUCTION

Heather Pich filed a putative class action against her former employers, LaserAway, LLC, and LaserAway Medical Group, Inc. (collectively, LaserAway), alleging various wage and hour claims under the Labor Code arising out of her employment.1 In response, LaserAway moved to compel arbitration, strike the class claims, dismiss the tenth cause of action for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), and dismiss or stay the litigation. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that LaserAway failed to prove the existence of an agreement between the parties to arbitrate. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

LaserAway hired Pich in May 2021. Pich electronically signed several employment related documents using LaserAway’s computerized onboarding process, including one entitled Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Employment Related Disputes (the agreement). The agreement provides, in relevant part that it “is made and entered into by and between Heather Pich and LaserAway (the ‘Company’).” It further provides: “The Company and I understand and agree that we will arbitrate disputes and claims under this Agreement…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.