Perez

Perez v. U-Haul Co. of CA 9/16/6 CA2/7

Good Law
2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 772·207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 605·3 Cal. App. 5th 408·26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1694
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 16, 2016B262029California4,823 words

Opinion

Opinion

Zelon, J.

Plaintiffs Sergio Perez and Erick Veliz Ramos filed a representative action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.), alleging that U-Haul Co. of California (U-Haul) violated several provisions of the Labor Code, including overtime and meal break requirements. U-Haul filed a motion to compel plaintiffs to individually arbitrate whether they qualified as “aggrieved employee [s],” and therefore had standing to pursue a PAGA claim. (See Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (a).) U-Haul asserted that all other issues regarding the PAGA claim should be stayed pending resolution of the arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that California law prohibits an employer from compelling an employee to split the litigation of a PAGA claim between multiple forums. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Events Preceding the Motion to Compel Arbitration

In 2010 and 2011, U-Haul hired plaintiffs Erick Veliz and Sergio Perez (collectively plaintiffs) to serve as customer service representatives. As a condition of their employment, plaintiffs signed a mandatory arbitration agreement that contained the following…

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.