Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-It was error to consider both the amounts asked for in plaintiff’s class claims and the amount asked for in the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698 et seq., claim when deciding that the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005’s (CAFA), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (codified in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.S.), $ 5,000,000 threshold was exceeded; [2]-Where a plaintiff filed an action containing class and non-class claims, and the class claims did not meet the CAFA amount-in-controversy requirement while the nonclass claims, standing alone, did not meet diversity of citizenship jurisdiction requirements, the amount involved in the non-class claims could not be used to satisfy the CAFA jurisdictional amount, and the CAFA diversity provisions could not be invoked to give the district court jurisdiction over the non-class claims. Parties’ litigation attorney appeal.

Outcome

Judgment reversed. Case remanded with directions.

HOLDINGS: [1]-The issue of arbitrability was delegated to an American Arbitration Association arbitrator because the parties’ contract expressly provided that any employment related disputes and/or disputes arising out of or relating to the actions of the company or company’s employees shall be settled by final and binding arbitration, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act; [2]-Agreement to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator was not substantively unconscionable because, among others, unilateral modification clause did not make it unconscionable and the parties’ arbitration agreement and the American Arbitration Association rules incorporated did not require employee to pay excessive fees. Accordingly, employee failed to his burden of proving that the agreement to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator was unconscionable.