HPL files amicus brief on behalf of CELA and CAOC

Hunter Pyle Law recently filed an amicus brief on behalf of the California Lawyers Association (CELA) and Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) in the case of Tolbert, et al., v. Sisyphian, LLC, et al. (Ninth Cir. Case No. 21-55484. Tolbert addresses the critical issue of whether a relatively new law, Senate Bill 707, Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2019) (SB 707), is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Our brief argues that SB 707 is not preempted. Furthermore, it was enacted in response to a glaring loophole that was causing serious harm to California’s workers by allowing employers to delay arbitrations by refusing to pay the arbitrator’s fees.

Specifically, SB 707 provides a pro-arbitration solution to a serious structural problem that is baked into arbitrations for employees and consumers in California: Prior to SB 707, companies could force such individuals into private arbitration and then strategically choose not to pay the arbitrator’s fees. That type of gamesmanship was leaving employees and consumers in legal limbo, unable to proceed in court or arbitration.

SB 707 resolves this problem by providing a set of remedies designed to make arbitration speedier and more efficient. In particular, SB 707 provides a bright-line rule that will eliminate any confusion regarding the deadline for paying an arbitrator’s fees. That deadline will ensure that companies do not delay in making those payments. As a result, arbitrations will move forward without delay, as Congress intended.

SB 707 also eliminates the need for any satellite litigation regarding what should happen if a party fails to pay the arbitrator’s fees in a timely manner. That will also streamline arbitration and ensure that it is focused on the claims at issue.

CELA is an organization of California attorneys whose members primarily represent employees in a wide range of employment cases, including individual, class, and representative actions, many of which are resolved through arbitration. CELA has a substantial interest in protecting the statutory rights of California workers and ensuring the vindication of the public policies embodied in California employment laws.

CELA has taken a leading role in advancing and protecting the rights of California workers, which has included submitting amicus briefs and letters and appearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the California Supreme Court in employment rights cases such as Ayala v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., 851 F. App’x 53 (9th Cir. 2021); Chamber of Com. of United States v. Bonta, 13 F.4th 766 (9th Cir. 2021); Salazar v. McDonald’s Corp., 944 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2019); Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal. 4th 1094 (2007); Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 443 (2007); Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012); Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014); and Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 59 Cal. 4th 522 (2014).

Hunter Pyle Law was proud to file this brief on behalf of CELA and CAOC.

CELA is an organization of California attorneys whose members primarily represent employees in a wide range of employment cases, including individual, class, and representative actions, many of which are resolved through arbitration. CELA has a substantial interest in protecting the statutory rights of California workers and ensuring the vindication of the public policies embodied in California employment laws.

CAOC, founded in 1962, is a voluntary non-profit membership organization of more than 6,000 consumer attorneys dedicated to preserving and protecting the rights of ordinary consumers and employees, championing the cause of those who deserve redress for injury to person or property, and resisting efforts to curtail the rights of such injured persons.