In California, There Is No Universal Rule That Arbitrator Or Court Decides Whether A Class Action Can Be Arbitrated — It Depends On The Agreement.

        The United States Supreme Court has held that a party may not be compelled to submit to class arbitration unless there is an express contractual basis for  concluding the  parties agreed to class arbitration.  Stolt Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 685 (2010).  However, the California Supreme Court has  held that who — arbitrator or judge — decides about the availability of class arbitration is a matter  of contract interpretation.  Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc., 15 Cal.5th 233, 243 (2016).  We posted about Sandquist almost exactly one year ago, on July 28, 2016.

        Following the Sandquist precedent, the Court of  Appeal has reversed the trial court's denial of an employee's petition to compel class arbitration, concluding that the arbitration agreement in Network Capital Funding v. Papke, G049172 (4/3  7/21/17) (Aronson, Bedsworth, Fybel) (unpublished) could not be meaningfully distinguished from the agreement in Sandquist.  The Arbitration Agreement in Network Capital was broadly drafted to include "any claim, dispute, and/or controversy", and it governed "all disputes that may arise out of or be related to  [Papke's] employment in any way" (italics added by the Court).  The Arbitration Agreement included exceptions, but the exceptions did not apply.  Finally, the Agreement was a form contract drafted by Network Capital and imposed on the plaintiff as a term of his employment.