Court Of Appeal Also Holds That The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) Does Not Preempt California's Anti-SLAPP Statute.

    This dispute began in 2012 when Ruiz filed a putative class action against Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (MBAG) for employment- related claims. By the time we get to the  instant appeal, Moss Bros. Toy, Inc. v. Ruiz, E067240 (4/2  9/20/18) (Fields, Codrington, Slough), plenty of water  had flowed under the  bridge. In a Ruiz I appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's denial of MBAG's petition to compel arbitration. In a second case, MBAG contended that actually Moss Bros. Toy, Inc. (MBT) was Ruiz's employer, that MBAG was an intended beneficiary of arbitration agreements, and that MBAG should be entitled to compel arbitration; MBT  filed an application to intervene. In Ruiz II, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order denying MBT''s application to intervene in the second case.

     And this brings us to MBT's current lawsuit against Ruiz. This time MBT alleged that Ruiz had breached a contract by filing his lawsuit rather than arbitrating under the agreement with his employer. The trial court granted Ruiz's anti-SLAPP motion, because MBT's entire first amended complaint was based on Ruiz's protected right to  petition, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

    The Court of Appeal also rejected MBT's creative argument that the  FAA preempted California's anti-SLAPP statute. However, the anti-SLAPP statute does not uniquely burden efforts to arbitrate; it applies to all claims that are based on acts in furtherance of protected rights of  petition and free speech.

     Finally, the Court of Appeal held that the  first amended complaint lacked minimal merit, because MBT failed to authenticate either  of two written 2010 arbitration agreements in opposing Ruiz's anti-SLAPP motion.

      COMMENT: There is another issue concerning the merits that  the Court of Appeal does not discuss. Does a party to an arbitration agreement who decides to sue rather than to arbitrate breach the arbitration agreement? In Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. Browne George Ross LLP, 15 Cal.App.5th 749 (2017), the Court of  Appeal held that the party to the arbitration agreement , who decides to sue instead of  arbitrate cannot be sued for breach of contract, because one has a right to file a  lawsuit, and because the defendant can respond by petitioning to arbitrate or by filing an answer. See our  post of September 29, 2017 on Sargon Enterprises.