Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. is now final final final

Assuming you fall into the camp that doesn't want to see arbitration used to destroy all collective rights (which camp includes plaintiffs' counsel explicilty and defendants' counsel covertly), here is some good  news, compliments of The UCL Practitioner.  The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari in Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 197 Cal.App.4th 489 (2011).  In Brown, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) held that representative PAGA claims (i.e., not class-based claims) are not subject to arbitration, even post-Concepcion.  That's Concepcion, the case, not the other option (with different spelling).

Get your PAGA letters ready.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of March 26, 2012

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on March 28, 2012.  Notable results include:

• Review was granted in Wisdom v. Accentcare, Inc.  The Court of Appeal invalidated an arbitration agreement as unconscionable and expressly criticized the result reached in Roman.  The case was covered on this blog here.

Arbitration agreement did not clearly and unequivocally delegate to arbitrator the power to determine unconscionability

Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2772 (2010) held that parties could delegate to the arbitrator the power to decide threshold decisions of arbitrability.  This, of course, leads to questions about how explicit such a delegation must be to pass muster.  Rent-A-Center observed that, unless the parties "clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise," the question of arbitrability is one for the Court.  In Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P. (February 16, 2012), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Five) examined an arbitration agreement to determine whether the trial court erred by deciding the arbitration question and concluding that the agreement was unconscionable.

The Court first considered the issue of who should decide the arbitrability question:

The “clear and unmistakable” test reflects a “heightened standard” of proof. (Rent-A-Center, supra, 130 S.Ct. at p. 2777, fn. 1.) That is because the question of who would decide the unconscionability of an arbitration provision is not one that the parties would likely focus upon in contracting, and the default expectancy is that the court would decide the matter. (First Options, supra, 514 U.S. at pp. 943-945.) Thus, the Supreme Court has decreed, a contract's silence or ambiguity about the arbitrator's power in this regard cannot satisfy the clear and unmistakable evidence standard. (Id. at pp. 943-945.)

Slip op., at 9.  Turning to the language of the agreement, the Court concluded that the agreement was ambiguous.  The Court held that a provision directing “[a]ny disputes, differences or controversies” to arbitration could apply to the threshold question of arbitrability or all substantive disputes.  Becasue the language was not clear and unmistakable, the Court held that no delegation of the threshold question was enforcable.

Next, the Court considered whether a reference to AAA rules, which give arbitrators the right to decide arbitrability, was sufficient to delegate that question to the arbitrator.  The Court examined existing decisions, finding a split of authority on the issue.  After identifying cases on both sides of the issue, the Court concluded that a reference to AAA rules, without more, was insufficient:

In our view, while the incorporation of AAA rules into an agreement might be sufficient indication of the parties' intent in other contexts, we seriously question how it provides clear and unmistakable evidence that an employer and an employee intended to submit the issue of the unconscionability of the arbitration provision to the arbitrator, as opposed to the court. There are many reasons for stating that the arbitration will proceed by particular rules, and doing so does not indicate that the parties' motivation was to announce who would decide threshold issues of enforceability.

Slip op., at 19.  The Court also noted that the agreement was unclear as to whether AAA rules or rules of another arbitration entity would govern.

The Court next reviewed the trial court's finding of unconscionability.  First, the Court exmained the procedural unconscionability:

Substantial evidence supports the court's finding. Ajamian, who had already been working as a broker for almost 10 months, had no realistic bargaining power and was required to sign the Employment Agreement to receive her promised compensation – for work she had already performed. Furthermore, the Employment Agreement was not the subject of any negotiation. Ajamian stated in her declaration that she wanted to make changes to the Employment Agreement and felt uncomfortable signing it, but felt she had no choice based on Margolis' statements.

Slip op., at 26.  The Court concluded that it was unnecessary to quantify the degree of procedural unconscionability, since substantive unconscionability was evident in several ways:

In finding that the arbitration provision was unconscionable, the court found that the damages limitation in the arbitration provision was unlawful and the attorney fees clause elsewhere in the Employment Agreement (which the arbitration provision would enforce) was unconscionable. Ajamian also argued, as she does here, that the arbitration provision is substantively unconscionable for reasons the trial court did not rule upon: the provision requires her to forfeit numerous unwaivable substantive California statutes; it grants CantorCO2e discretion to choose the arbitration rules and source of the arbitration panel; and it forces Ajamian to pay tens of thousands of dollars she did not have when she entered into the agreement to obtain relief by arbitrating before three arbitrators in New York.

Slip op., at 28-29.  During its extensive discussion, the Court explained by Pearson Dental did not apply:

As a general proposition (where the clear and unmistakable test does not apply), we agree that ambiguous terms should be construed, where reasonable, in favor of arbitration. But the Pearson Dental rule does not apply here. In Pearson Dental, the court considered a single potentially unconscionable term in an arbitration agreement; here, there are multiple unconscionable terms in the Employment Agreement. Moreover, the term in Pearson Dental was ambiguous and did not expressly preclude the plaintiff from pursuing any remedy; by contrast, the unconscionable terms in the Employment Agreement categorically mandate that arbitration proceed, under the laws of New York and an arbitration organization of CantorCO2e's choosing, without the relief to which Ajamian would be entitled in California, but with an obligation to pay CantorCO2e's attorney fees if unsuccessful. Further, the language of the arbitration provision does not lend itself to an interpretation that the arbitrator may make awards contrary to the terms of the Employment Agreement; indeed, the Employment Agreement explicitly states just the opposite. (See Wherry, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1249-1250.)

Slip op., at 33.  The Court concluded its analysis by rejecting an argument that an Employee Handbook referencing an arbitration policy that would be signed by employees could create an enforceable arbitration agreement.

The arbitration arms race continues...

Another arbitration-friendly decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood

Today the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood (Jan. 10, 2012).  At issue was whether a sentence in that act, at 15 U. S. C. §1679c(a), which says, "You have a right to sue a credit repair organization that violates the [Act]," preserves the right to sue in court.  Because the Credit Repair Organizations Act is silent as to whether claims may be heard in an arbitration forum, the Court held, 8-1, that the arbitration agreement in question should be enforced according to its terms.  Justice Ginsburg dissented strongly, and the short concurring opinion by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan stated that the case was a much closer call than the majority opinion suggests, noting good points raised in the dissenting opinion of Ginsburg.  In particular there seems to be a strong disagreement about whether Congressional intent must be explicitly stated or may be inferred from a consistent set of statements suggesting a specific intent.  Not much more to say about this, other than to note that its essentially a tautology that the majority gets to decide whether they see a clear Congressional intent or not.  If they say there isn't an intent, then they are right by default.

NLRB issues decision in D.R. Horton protecting employees from arbitration agreements barring class actions

Fairly hot off the presses, we have the National Labor Relations Board's decision in D.R. Horton, Inc.  The decision addresses, among other things, whether a mandatory arbitration agreement that bars class or collective actions violates certain employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act.  Hint: it does.  Very important for certain wage & hour cases.

Full disclosure: I contributed an amicus brief in response to the NLRB's invitation for such briefs, as noted in footnote 1.

Disagreeing with a sister Court of Appeal, Wisdom v. Accentcare, Inc. wisely finds arbitration agreement unconscionable

The fact that equally learned Courts of Appeal reach fundamentally different results from similar circumstances either confirms that minute differences in fact are all that are needed to change the result on tough legal issues (the "aren't we important in the legal field" explanation) or confirms that we're all making this pseudo-science of law up as we go along (the "likely" explanation).  In Wisdom v. Accentcare, Inc. (July 3, 2012), a Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) examined an arbitration clause included within an application for unemployment.  The trial court concluded that the application was unenforceable, given its substantial procedural and substantive unconscionability.  The Court of Appeal agreed.

Procedural unscionability was obvious to the Court:

In this case, the preemployment arbitration agreement is procedurally unconscionable. “[F]ew employees are in a position to refuse a job because of an arbitration requirement.” (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 115.)

Slip op., at 2.  The Court found additional evidence of procedural unconscionability in the agreement "because its language implied there was no opportunity to negotiate, because the rules of any arbitration were not spelled out in the agreement or attached thereto, and because plaintiffs did not understand they were waiving their right to a trial, nor was that fact explained to them."

The Court then found substantive unconscionability because of the lack of mutuality:

The lack of mutuality is made apparent by contrast to a different application form, also employed by AccentCare, which provided that “in exchange for my agreement to arbitrate, AccentCare, Inc. also agrees to submit all claims and disputes it may have with me to final and binding arbitration . . . .” “[I]n the context of an arbitration agreement imposed by the employer on the employee, such a one-sided term is unconscionable.” (Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 118.)

Slip op., at 2-3.

Much of the discussion includes a more detailed discussion of the various deficiencies identified by the trial court.  Of particular note, though, was the Court's mention of an opinion from the Second Appellate District, Division Seven, which reached a different result in similar but not identical circumstances:

We are aware that Division 7 of the Second Appellate District examined a nearly identical arbitration agreement in Roman, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at page 1470-1471, and held that the procedural unfairness was “limited[.]” Roman reasoned that there was little evidence of surprise since the arbitration provision was “contained on the last page of a seven-page employment application,” and “was set forth in a separate, succinct (four-sentence) paragraph that Roman initialed, affirming she had seen it.” (Id. at p. 1471.)

Here, however, even though plaintiffs undoubtedly saw the arbitration paragraph when they initialed it, their declarations state they did not know what “binding arbitration” meant, no one explained it to them, and they were unaware they were giving up their right to trial. There was no evidence any of the plaintiffs were sophisticated in legal matters. This, combined with the non-negotiable, take-it-or-leave-it circumstances surrounding the application for employment, result in a strong showing of procedural unconscionability.

Slip op., at 10-11.  Then, when discussing substantive unconscionability in the form of one-sidedness, the Court's criticism of Roman is more pointed:

Defendants rely on Roman, supra, which held that an agreement containing nearly identical language was bilateral. (172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1473.) But Roman, supra, did not explain its reasons for concluding that the agreement at issue in that case was bilateral. Instead, the court distinguished Higgins, supra, on the ground that the procedural unconscionability in Higgins had been “far greater[.]” (Id. at pp. 1472-1473.)

To the extent Roman implies that the agreement in Higgins was not substantively unconscionable due to its one-sidedness, it is wrong. Higgins, supra, discussed at some length the fact that the “I agree” language of the contract indicated that only the siblings had agreed to the arbitration clause, and stated only briefly that “[a]dditional elements of substantive unconscionability” were to be found in the provision barring only the siblings from seeking appellant review of some claims and the provision requiring arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. (Higgins, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1254.)

Slip op., at 14-14.

While I may be biased from my own success before Division Seven, I generally like the analyses in that Division's opinions.  But it is hard to find fault with this Court's critique of Roman. 

Remand of Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno may provide more guidance on status of arbitration defenses in California

On Monday, October 31, 2011 (hello, Halloween), the United States Supreme Court issued the following Order:

10-1450 SONIC-CALABASAS A, INC. V. MORENO, FRANK The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of California for further consideration in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. ___ (2011).

In Sonic Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2011), reported at 51 Cal. 4th 659, a divided California Supreme Court (4-3) concluded that (1) "Berman" hearings are an unwaivable statutory right, (2) arbitration is an acceptable alternative to de novo review by the Superior Court, (3) a waiver of the right to a "Berman" hearing before the Labor Commissioner is against public policy, and (4) the waiver of a "Berman" hearing is unconscionable under standard contractual principles of unconscionability analysis.

What does this mean?  It means that the underpinnigs of Gentry may be explored in the follow-up opinion.  It also means that the new Justices, including the new Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, may be deciding votes, given that Chief Justice George was in the majority and Justice Moreno authored the original opinion. 

In Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC, Court slays arbitration agreement, comments on Concepcion and Armendariz

With AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011) in the bank and earning interest, the new defense playbook includes a renewed, direct assault on Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83 (2000).  But in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC (October 24, 2011), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division One) stongly declared the ongoing viability of Armendariz after Concepcion.  In other words, Concepcion is to state law unconscionability analysis as tap water is to vampires - no effect.

 The allegations are easy to summarize.  Plaintiff Sanchez wanted to buy a used Mercedes.   The dealer charged him $3,700 to have the vehicle "certified" as eligible for a lower interest rate.  That was a lie.  The charge was for an undisclosed and optional extended warranty.  The dealer charged him new tire fees when not all of the tires were new.  Plaintiff was also told that the vehicle was a "certified" used Mercedes, having been through a rigorous inspection and maintenance process.  That was also a lie.  Sanchez filed a class action alleging, among other things, violations of the CLRA, ASFA, UCL, Song-Beverly Act, and Public Resources Code section 42885.

Valencia moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, stating that the CLRA expressly provides for class actions and declares the right to a class action to be unwaivable.   (See Civ. Code, §§ 1781, 1751.) As a consequence, the class action waiver in the arbitration provision was unenforceable. Further, because the agreement included a poison pill clause, the unenforceability of the class action waiver made the entire arbitration provision unenforceable.   The trial court therefore denied the motion. Valencia appealed.

The Court of Appeal began its discussion by summarizing its conclusion:

We do not address whether the class action waiver is unenforceable. Rather, we conclude the arbitration provision as a whole is unconscionable: The provision is procedurally unconscionable because it is adhesive and satisfies the elements of oppression and surprise; it is substantively unconscionable because it contains terms that are one-sided in favor of the car dealer to the detriment of the buyer. Because the provision contains multiple invalid terms, it is permeated with unconscionability and unenforceable. Severance of the offending terms is not appropriate. It follows that the case should be heard in a court of law.

Slip op., at 10.  Next, focusing on Concepcion and Armendariz, the Court said:

Before applying Armendariz to the present case, we note that Concepcion, supra, 131 S.Ct. 1740, does not preclude the application of the Armendariz principles to determine whether an arbitration provision is unconscionable. Concepcion disapproved the "Discover Bank rule," stating:  "In Discover Bank, the California Supreme Court applied [the doctrine of unconscionability] to class-action waivers in arbitration agreements and held as follows: [¶]  '[W]hen the [class action] waiver is found in a consumer contract of adhesion in a setting in which disputes between the contracting parties predictably involve small amounts of damages, and when it is alleged that the party with the superior bargaining power has carried out a scheme to deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money, then . . . the waiver becomes in practice the exemption of the party "from responsibility for [its] own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another." Under these circumstances, such waivers are unconscionable under California law and should not be enforced.'" (Concepcion, at p. 1746, italics added.) With the exception of the Discover Bank rule, the Court acknowledged that the doctrine of unconscionability is still a basis for invalidating arbitration provisions. (Concepcion, at pp. 1746, 1747; see Kanbar v. O’Melveny & Myers (N.D.Cal. 2011) 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 79447, pp. *15–*16, *23–*24, 2011 WL 2940690, pp. *6, *9.) Thus, Concepcion is inapplicable where, as here, we are not concerned with a class action waiver or a judicially imposed procedure that conflicts with the arbitration provision and the purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16). (See Concepcion, at pp. 1748–1753.)

Slip op., at 11-12.  In the balance of the opinion, the Court found procedural unconscionability (one-sided and surprise) and substantive unconscionability (several terms favoring dealer).  The Court then concluded that some of the substantive defects could not be cured by striking provisions.

The Court explicity declined to address the issue of whether the CLRA rendered the class action waiver provision unenforceable.

Justice Rothschild concurred in the judgment.

In NAACP of Camden County East v. Foulke Management Corp., New Jersey appellate court finds reasons to distinguish Concepcion

When you stamp down too hard, stuff leaks out the sides.  AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) was the boot.  Since then, we've been waiting to see what would leak out the sides.  There has been a good deal of discussion about the ramifications of Concepcion.  While Concepcion may make things harder for class actions, the severity of the opinion is also inspiring interesting challenges to arbitration agreements on many fronts.  In NAACP of Camden  County East v. Foulke Management Corp. (August 2, 2011), the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court concluded that convoluted and inconsistent arbitration provisions in an automobile purchase contract could not be enforced, reversing the trial court's order directing the matter to individual arbitration.

The opinion focused heavily on the concurring opinion of Justice Thomas for its conclusion that a confusing consumer contract provision related to arbitration would not be enforced:

Thus, in the aftermath of AT&T Mobility, state courts remain free to decline to enforce an arbitration provision by invoking traditional legal doctrines governing the formation of a contract and its interpretation. Applying such core principles of contract law here, we must decide whether there was mutual assent to the arbitration provisions in the dealership's contract documents. As part of that assessment, we must examine whether the terms of the provisions were stated with sufficient clarity and consistency to be reasonably understood by the consumer who is being charged with waiving her right to litigate a dispute in court.

Slip op., at 31.  The Court found ample evidence for the proposition that the consumer could not have reasonably understood the arbitration provisions.  The Court did take a moment to opine that the trial court was correct when it found that a class action waiver could not be invalidated on public policy grounds.  But the Court then found that the issue was irrelevant to the outcome, since the provisions were unenforcable on formation grounds.

Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, scoffs at notion that Concepcion preempts all state unconscionability law

As soon as a blockbuster decision hits the street, zealous litigators work to stretch it as far as it can go.   AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (April 27, 2011) is getting that elastic band treatment right now.  For example, AT&T Mobility (Concepcion) was the subject of a brief aside in Mission Viejo Emergency Medical Associates v. Beta Healthcare Group (July 25, 2007).  In a lawsuit between an insured and the insurer, a motion to compel arbitration of a dispute arising out of the policy was denied by the trial court.  The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for further proceedings regarding a claim of unconscionability.  In the course of the discussion, the Court said:

We invited the parties to provide their comments on the recent United States Supreme Court case, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) __ U.S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740] (AT&T). Defendants appear to argue that AT&T essentially preempts all California law relating to unconscionability. We disagree, as the case simply does not go that far. General state law doctrine pertaining to unconscionability is preserved unless it involves a defense that applies "only to arbitration or that derive[s] [its] meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue." (Id. at p. __ [131 S.Ct. at p.1746].) This simply does not apply here.

Slip op., at 13, n. 4.  The Court then concluded that the asserted unconscionable provisions in the arbitration agreement could be dealt with by the trial court when it considered any motion to sever provisions:

The specific provisions that plaintiffs raise — regarding arbitration in San Francisco, the even split of the cost, and the nonarbitrability of discretionary decisions — can be the subject of a motion to sever before the trial court if the parties cannot reach agreement on the terms of arbitration. (Civ. Code, § 1670.5, subd. (a).) Although we may decide this issue as a matter of first impression (see Higgins v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1251), given the relative lack of factual development as to these issues, we believe that deference to the trial court would better serve the ends of justice.

Slip op., at 15.

So there you have it from the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three: AT&T Mobility (Concepcion) doesn't preempt all California law on the subject of contractual unconscionability.  They didn't even break a sweat figuring that out.  Interestingly, this is the second decision (Brown v. Ralphs being the first) that asked for supplemental briefing on AT&T Mobility (Concepcion) but issued a decision that is relatively unaffected by it.