Reverse chronological e-mail alerts prepared pro bono for the California Lawyers Association (formerly State Bar of California) Labor & Employment Law Section, unofficially since 2003 and officially since 2007, covering California, 9th Circuit and US Supreme Court decisions, and new laws signed by Governor. To subscribe, contact LaborLaw@CLA.Legal.
​
See prior archived alerts by clicking on "Blog" under menu. For alerts older than one year, please request under Contact tab.​​​​
Sandler v. Modernizing Medicine, Inc. (9th Cir. 24-6623 3/19/26) Arbitration
The panel reversed the district court’s judgment denying a motion to compel arbitration, vacated the judgment that the parties’ arbitration agreement was unconscionable, and remanded with instructions to grant the motion to compel arbitration.
The employment contract between the parties specified that any employment-related disputes be subject to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act in conformity with the procedures of the California Arbitration Act. The district court acknowledged that the arbitration agreement delegated the question of the agreement’s validity to an arbitrator to decide. The district court ruled, however, that where the contract contained a severability clause permitting a court to excise an unconscionable provision, the delegation clause did not constitute a clear and unmistakable delegation and thus could not be enforced.
The panel held that the district court misapplied federal law and erroneously relied on state-court decisions pointing to the existence of a severability clause to refuse to compel arbitration. The parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to have the arbitrator resolve any challenge to the validity of the arbitration agreement. The clear and unmistakable nature of the delegation was not negated by the presence of a severability clause. The panel rejected the district court’s attempt to adopt a state rule that disfavored arbitration here.
The panel also vacated the district court’s judgment that the parties’ arbitration agreement was unconscionable. The district court should not have addressed the issue in the first place, but instead should have enforced the delegation clause requiring an arbitrator’s resolution.
The panel remanded to the district court with instructions to grant the motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case pending the completion of arbitration proceedings.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/19/24-6623.pdf
​
Ayala-Ventura v. Superior Court (CA5 F089695, filed 2/19/26, pub. 3/17/26) Arbitration
Jazmin Ayala-Ventura filed a putative class action complaint against her former employer, CCS Facility Services-Fresno Inc. (CCS), alleging various state law violations for unpaid wages, meal and rest break violations, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unlawful business practices. CCS moved to compel arbitration of Ayala-Ventura’s claims pursuant to an arbitration agreement she executed when she was hired. The trial court granted CCS’s motion, ordered arbitration of Ayala-Ventura’s individual claims, and dismissed the class claims.
On appeal, Ayala-Ventura contends: (1) the arbitration agreement is unconscionable because it is overbroad, lacks mutuality, and indefinite in duration; and (2) the trial court is bound by stare decisis to follow Cook v. University of Southern California (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 312 (Cook), and erred by finding Cook factually distinguishable, not persuasive, and not binding.
Given the uncertainty of the trial court order’s appealability, we deem the appeal a petition for writ of mandate. We deny the petition on the merits.