Sorroza

Sorroza v. Express Services CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 28, 2024G062052California5,244 words

Opinion

Opinion

Motoike, J.

FACTS

In November 2019, Sorroza began working for Express, a franchisor of full-service staffing firms, and signed a mutual arbitration agreement (Agreement). The Agreement provided “all legal disputes and claims between [the parties] shall be determined exclusively by final and binding arbitration . . . .” “[C]laims” included “all claims pertaining to Individual’s employment or other relationship with [Express] (including application for or termination of employment or other relationship) and all claims for . . . wages, overtime, benefits, or other compensation . . . .” Actions to compel arbitration were “governed by Section 2 of the [FAA], 9 U.S.C. § 2, and not any state law.” After Sorroza signed the Agreement, Express placed Sorroza to work at Jellco Container, Inc. (Jellco), a manufacturer of corrugated boxes. Sorroza’s duties

2 included operating a forklift in Jellco’s shipping and receiving department and the loading and unloading of trucks that transported goods across state lines to and from Arizona.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In December 2021, Sorroza filed a putative class action against Express and Jellco, alleging 10 causes of action for violating various sections of 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.