Modification: Julian v. Glenair Inc.

MALISSA JULIAN et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

GLENAIR, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

No. B277064

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC597683)

California Courts of Appeal

Second Appellate District

Division Four

Filed Dec. 13, 2017

ORDER MODIFYING

OPINION AND DENYING

PETITION FOR REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:^*

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on November 27, 2017 be modified as follows:

On page 4, line 8, after "[the Rojas action].", insert the following footnote:

"The proposed agreement further provided that "to the extent permitted by law, for any claims for which you are seeking relief as a private attorney general on behalf of a government entity as a representative action, both you and [Glenair] agree that any such dispute shall be resolved on an individual basis only under this Program . . . , and that such an action may not be used to resolve the claims or rights of other employees or individuals in a single proceeding . . . .""

On page 19, lines 10 though 20, delete:

"Here, the arbitration agreement also contains a provision barring such claims, but Glenair's petition to compel did not attempt to enforce that provision. Rather, before the trial court and on appeal, Glenair has contended only that the agreement obliges respondents to submit their PAGA claim as a whole to arbitration.

In order to resolve Glenair's contention, we must examine the circumstances under which employees may agree to arbitrate PAGA claims, thereby waiving their right to assert those claims in a judicial forum."

And substitute:

"Here, the arbitration agreement also bars such claims "to the extent permitted by law," but Glenair's petition to compel requested only an order that respondents submit their claims to arbitration as required under the agreement, and a stay of court proceedings. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that to the extent the petition sought arbitration of respondents' claims, the agreement constituted an unenforceable predispute waiver of respondents' right to litigate their claims in court. In view of Iskanian, our conclusion necessarily implies as a corollary that the agreement also constituted an unenforceable predispute waiver of respondents' right to assert PAGA claims on behalf of other employees in any forum. (Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 382-383.) The focus of our inquiry is therefore on the predispute/postdispute boundary relating to agreements that require arbitration of PAGA claims in lieu of litigation in court.

In order to resolve that issue, we must examine the circumstances under which employees may agree to arbitrate PAGA claims, thereby waiving their right to assert those claims in a judicial forum."

Glenair's petition for rehearing is denied. The modification does not change the judgment.

^*EPSTEIN, P. J.

WILLHITE, J.

MANELLA, J.