N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

R OB ER TO AVILES,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e ,

v. QUIK PIC K EXPR ESS, LLC ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-56951

D.C . No. 2:15-c v-05214-M W F-AGR

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M ic h a e l W . Fitz ge ra ld, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 5, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia
B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, ** Distric t Judge

. This a p pe a l a rise s from a c om

pla int a ga inst Q uik Pic k Expre ss, LLC , a truc king

c om pa ny , by R obe rto A v ile s , one o f its drive rs. A vile s a l le ge s tha t Quik Pic k

m isc l a ssifie d him a s a n inde pe n de nt c ontra c t or ra the r tha n a n e m ploy e e , re sulting in 

# FIL ED

N OV 24 2017
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm a n, Unite d Sta t e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.the loss of va rious wa g es a nd la

bor be ne fits. From this unde rly i ng n e xus, Avile s

a lle ge s a sm orga sbord of c la im s ra nging from fa ilure to ke e p a c c ura te tim e re c ords to inte ntiona l inflic t ion of e m otion distre ss. A vile s brings this m ix of c la im s in a m i x of

c a pa c itie s— a s a n individua l a nd puta tive c la s s re pre s e nta tive , a s a priva te a ttorne y
ge ne ra l, a nd a s a l l thre e , de pe nding on the c la im

. The priva te -a ttorne y -ge ne ra l c la im s

a re re p re se nta tive c la im s unde r C a lifornia ’ s Priva te Attorne y s G e ne ra l Ac t of 2004,
C a l. La b. C ode § 2 6 9 8 et se q. (a nd he re ina fte r, “ PAGA” ), whic h “ a uthoriz e s a n

e m ploy e e to bring a n a c tion for c ivil pe n a l tie s on be ha lf o f the s ta te a ga inst his or he r

e m ploy e r for La

bor C ode viola

tions c o m

m itte d a ga inst the e m

ploy e e an d fe llow

e m ploy e e s, with m ost of the proc e e ds of tha t litiga tion going to t

he sta te .” S

ak k ab v
. Lux ottic a Re tail N

. A m., Inc

. , 803 F.3d 425, 429 (9th C ir. 2015) (quoting Isk anian v

. C LS Transp. L.A., LLC

, 327 P.3d 129, 133 (C a l . 2014)). Avile s’ s c ontra c t ha s a s e c tion re quiring Avile s to subm it c la im s to a rbitra tion. This sa m e se c tion provide s tha t a rbitra tion will oc c ur on only a n individua l ba sis, a n d it re inforc e s tha t p rovision by e xpre ssly providing tha

t c la im s a s a re pre se nta tive a re

wa ive d. As a m a tte r of p u

blic polic y , howe ve r, C a lifornia la w prohibits PAGA c la im s f r o m be ing wa ive d in this m a nne r. S ak k ab , 803 F.3d a t 430–31. The distr i ct co u r t

a pplie d t his rule a nd he ld tha t the wa iv er c la use wa s une nforc e a

ble a s t o the PAGA

c la im s. M ore ove r, a lthough this que stion a rgua bly should itse lf ha ve be e n a rbitra te d,

2the c ourt de c ide d the issue itse lf. Its re c ognition of the Cal i f ornia rule le ft for

re solution whe the r Avile s’ s individua l c la im s should still be subm itte d to a rbitra tion. The distric t c ourt h e ld tha t the y should not. Q u ik Pic k a c k nowle dge d a t ora l a rgum e nt tha t the a rbitrat i o n s e c tion wa s une nforc e a ble a s to t

he PAGA c la im s , b ut a

ppe a ls from the de nia l of its m otion t o c om pe l a rbitra tion a s to Avile s’ s indi v i d u al, nonre pre se nta tive c la im s. B e fore we a ddre ss this ruling, t he re is a pre l im ina

ry que st i o n w h et h e r the distric t c ourt should ha ve rule d on a rbitra bility a t al l , or whe t

he r, unde r the inc o rpora te d JAM S rule s, the d ispute ove r whic h c la im s s hould b e a rbitra te d wa s itse lf

a rbitra ble

. B ut the unde rly ing issue is both highly t e c hnic a l a nd e xplic i tly ope n in t his

c irc uit. Se e Bre nnan v
. Opus Bank , 7 96 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th C ir. 2015). T h e re is n o

ne e d to unknot the issue whe n we c a n sim ply c ut through it in the a

bse nc e of a ny re a l dispute

. Avile s m a inta ins tha t the distric t c ourt should ha v e de c i de d a rbitra bility

. Quik Pic k disa gre e s only

in t he a lte rna tive , o nly if w e affirm the a rbitra bility ruling. As i t ha ppe ns, we d o not a ffirm , a nd we thus se e no ha rm to e ithe r p ar t y i n as sum ing tha t the d istric t c o urt c ould rule on whe the r Avile s’ s c la im s we re a rbitra b le

. As t o the substa

n c e o f t h at r u ling, we va c a te a nd re m a nd. In Franc o v
. Arak e lian Ente rprise

s , Inc

. , 234 C a l. App. 4th 947, 952–53, 965 (2015), the C a lifornia
C ourt of Appe a l fa c e d a sim ila r situa tion a nd p re se rve d t h e p ar t ie s’ c o ntra c tua l

3e xpe c ta tions a s m uc h a s possible by sim

ply re stric ting the a rbitra tion provision from

a pply ing to PAGA cl ai m s
. Tha t pre ve nte d the p la intiff “ from ga ining unde se rve d

re lie f from his a gre e m e nt to a rb i t r at e h i s individua l c l a im s” a nd prote c te d the de fe nda n t “ from the unde se rve d de trim e nt of h a ving its e ntire [a rbitra tion] a gre e m e nt voide d due to i t s i n cl usion of a provision re spe c ting only c e rta in c la im s,” a ll while
pre s e rving the pla intiff’ s rights unde r PAGA. Id. a t 965. W e do the sa m e h e re
. Inde e d, the la ngua ge of the a rbitra tion se c t ion he re e xpre ssly p rovide s tha t “ [i] f a ny provision
in this Se c tio n i s f

ound to be une nforc e a

ble , tha t te rm s ha ll be se ve re d a nd the

re m a ining te rm s e n forc e d.”
W e va c a te the distric t c o u rt’ s o rde r a nd re m a nd w ith the following instruc tions. The distric t c ourt should gra n t the m otion to c om pe l a rbitra tion o n a

n individua l ba sis with re spe c t to a ny c la im tha t Avile s brings on his o wn be ha lf (re ga rdle ss of whe the r he a lso puta

tive ly re p re se nts c la ss m e m b e rs )

. Enforc ing the re pre se nta tive -a c tion

wa ive r e xc e p t a s t o P A G A, the distric t c ourt should de c line to a llow Avile s to

re pre se nt a ny othe r indiv i d u al , a s a c la ss re pre se nta tive or othe rwise

. 1 Fina lly , the d i stric t c ourt should s ta y A vile s’ s PAGA c la im s during t he pe nde nc y of t h e

1 As to subje c t-m a tte r jurisdic tion in this c irc um s ta nc e , se e Unite d Ste e l, P ape r & Fore stry , Rubbe r , Mfg., Ene rgy

, Allie d Indus. & Se rv
. W

ork e rs Int’l Union, AFL-C

IO, C LC v . She ll Oil C

o. , 602 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th C ir. 2010).

4a rbitra tion. 2 I f the a rbitra tion on the individua l c la im s de te rm ine s tha t Avile s is a n

“ a g grie v e d e m

ploy e e ” within the m e a n i n g of C a l. La b. C ode § 2699, the n he c a n
pursue his PAGA c la im s in the distric t c o urt. V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D.

2 Avile s’ s c om

pla int a lso disc u sse s va

rious ki n d s o f injunc tive re lie f. One of the e xc e ptions to t

he a rbitra tion p rovision is tha t i t doe s not prohibit Aviles “ from bringing a ny a c tion in a

ny c ourt of c om

p e te n t jurisdic tion for injunc tive or othe r e xtra ordina

ry re lie f.” B e c a

use Avile s fa ile d to brie f this issue , we think it a ppropria te tha t the sta

y e nc om pa ss his i njunc tive c la im s, to the e x te nt the y re m a in in the distric t c ourt. 5