Garcia v. ISS Facility Services, Inc.

Background

The court had previously certified classes proposed by Claudia Garcia, limited to employees of ISS Facility Services, Inc. and ISS Facility Services California, Inc. who worked at the El Dorado Hills facility. The earlier certification order identified a question about whether Garcia could satisfy the class-action requirement of numerosity, meaning that the proposed class must be large enough to justify class treatment. ISS had argued that nearly all employees at the facility had signed arbitration agreements.

The court previously found that Garcia had established numerosity because ISS had not provided enough information about employees who may have signed later mediation agreements replacing earlier arbitration agreements. ISS then moved to decertify the classes, arguing that only nine employees, including Garcia, either had not signed arbitration agreements or had signed superseding mediation agreements.

Parties’ Arguments and Evidentiary Issues

ISS relied partly on a declaration from its human-resources director, Kimberly Wray. The declaration stated that 27 of 36 employees at the Broadridge facility had signed binding arbitration agreements. Garcia argued that ISS had not adequately authenticated the agreements.

The court said Wray’s declaration provided a sufficient basis, in the abstract, for authenticating employee arbitration agreements. But it found that the attached exhibits were poorly assembled. For example, some pages identified three individuals with redacted names, while the following signature page was signed by a different identified individual. The court also noted that many exhibits lacked a signature from an ISS representative.

The court further noted Garcia’s complaint that ISS had not explained the method it used to determine how many employees were covered by, or exempt from, arbitration agreements. ISS’s sworn statement that its review of employment files found no additional mediation agreements could support ISS’s position if ISS corrected the problems with the exhibits. But the court said ISS had not answered why only four employees, including Garcia, apparently were asked to sign and did sign superseding mediation agreements.

The court also identified a possible adequacy issue. Adequacy is the class-action requirement that the named plaintiff’s interests and representation be sufficient for the class. Because Garcia was not subject to an arbitration agreement while most other potential class members apparently were, the court questioned whether Garcia could adequately represent those employees. The court noted that Garcia had relied on the later mediation agreement rather than making an unconscionability argument when opposing arbitration of her individual claims.

Order

The court did not decide ISS’s motion for decertification. It stated that denying the motion on the existing record might be appropriate, but that doing so likely would not prevent ISS from filing another motion. To promote efficiency, the court allowed ISS to file a supplemental brief of no more than 10 pages and any appropriate supplemental declarations within 14 days of the order. Garcia could file a supplemental opposition of no more than 10 pages within seven days after ISS’s filing.

The matter would then be resubmitted for decision without reply briefing or oral argument unless the court ordered otherwise. The court also continued the further case-management conference to April 17, 2025. The order was signed by Richard Seeborg, Chief United States District Judge.