Arzate

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

On June 18, 2021, plaintiffs Michelle Arzate, Anthony Esquivel, Charleston Princeton, James Kang, and David Block filed a class action complaint alleging that ACE misclassified them as exempt employees (see Lab. Code, § 515) and failed to provide them with the benefits required for nonexempt employees under state law, such as overtime pay and meal and rest periods (see id., §§ 226.7, 510, 512). In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs added claims on an individual and representative basis under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et. seq.) for the same alleged violations. ACE moved to compel arbitration of the case on the basis of arbitration agreements that the plaintiffs had signed as a condition of their employment. The agreements consisted of three parts. First, the plaintiffs had signed a document titled “Arbitration Agreement,” which stated: “I agree that, in the event I have any employment related legal claims, I will submit them to final and binding neutral third-party arbitration, in accordance with the ACE Employment Dispute Arbitration Policy recited above, which is made a part of this agreement. I understand…