Romo

Romo v. Y-3 Holdings, Inc.

Good Law
105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 208·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 213·2001 Daily Journal DAR 2867·87 Cal. App. 4th 1153·17 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 694
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 20, 2001B136617California1,911 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hastings, J.

Appellants Y-3 Holdings, Inc., and Merv York appeal from an order denying arbitration of a lawsuit filed by respondent, ex-employee Lupe S. Romo, arising from termination of her employment. We conclude that the trial court did not err in concluding no agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties, and we affirm.

Statement of Facts

Respondent was continuously employed by appellants from April 3, 1980, through her firing on May 15, 1998.

On May 13, 1999, respondent filed a complaint alleging the following causes of action: breach of implied in fact contract; violation of California Constitution, article I, section 1 and article I, section 3; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; fraud; and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A first amended complaint alleging the same basic claims was filed on June 3, 1999.

On July 27, 1999, appellants filed a “Notice of Motion and Motion ... to Dismiss or Stay Action and Compel Arbitration.” The motion alleged an agreement to arbitrate contained within an employee handbook distributed to respondent in January 1998. A copy of the 44-page employee handbook was attached as an exhibit to the…

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.