Teimouri

Teimouri v. Macy's, Inc. CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 14, 2013D060696California24,379 words

Opinion

Opinion

I.

INTRODUCTION

Defendants Macy's, Inc. and Macy's West Stores, Inc. (jointly "Macy's") appeal

from an order of the trial court denying Macy's motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff

Mehrnoosh Teimouri's individual claims, to dismiss Teimouri's class and representative

claims, and to stay the action pending arbitration.

Macy's contends that the trial court erred in relying on Gentry v. Superior Court

(2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 (Gentry) to conclude that the class and collective action waiver in

the arbitration agreement is unenforceable. Macy's also argues that the trial court erred in

denying its motion to dismiss Teimouri's representative claims made pursuant to Labor

Code sections 2699 et seq., the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), because the

Federal Arbitration Act (FAA, 9 U.S.C., § 1 et seq.) requires courts to enforce arbitration

agreements according to their terms, even where those agreements contain a

representative action waiver that would otherwise preclude a representative PAGA claim.

Teimouri defends the trial court's ruling and its analysis of the state of the law with

respect to class and collective…

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.