Quilala

Quilala v. Securitas Security Services USA

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 16, 2025A172017California4,406 words

Opinion

Opinion

Petrou, J.

Filed 12/16/

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

FRANCISCO QUILALA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

A172017

v. SECURITAS SECURITY (San Francisco City & County SERVICES USA, INC. et al., Super. Ct. No. CGC-24-612606) Defendants and Appellants.

Francisco Quilala filed a complaint against Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (Securitas), Reynaldo De La Cruz, and Luis Castro (jointly, defendants) alleging sexual harassment and other causes of action related to his former employment with Securitas. Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration was unsuccessful as the trial court determined the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (9 U.S.C. §§ 401–402; EFAA) barred enforcement of the parties’ predispute arbitration agreement. We affirm the trial court order denying the motion to compel arbitration. As it must, the trial court exercised its independent duty to ensure the parties’ dispute fell within the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; FAA). This analysis required the court to evaluate whether the EFAA…

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.