Garcia v. ISS Facility Services, Inc.

Background

The opinion addresses whether the previously certified class should be decertified because nearly all class members had signed written agreements requiring binding arbitration. The court stated that prior orders had described the case’s facts and procedural history and did not repeat them here.

Defendants’ renewed showing

The court found defendants’ current showing adequate. Their earlier presentation had made it difficult to determine how many employees were subject to arbitration because copies of agreements were presented inconsistently. Defendants submitted new copies identifying the employees and explained which employee-file records were incomplete. The court said that missing pages created potential differences among class members, and that agreements apparently lacking defendants’ signatures might still be enforceable. At minimum, those issues created additional individualized questions.

The court also addressed the possibility that employees who initially signed arbitration agreements later signed mediation agreements that replaced them. Defendants said they could not determine why mediation agreements were used inconsistently during a short period. They explained, however, that Garcia signed an arbitration agreement when first hired and later signed a mediation agreement when she returned to work after a period of separation. The court found it plausible that Garcia was the only employee hired under an arbitration agreement who later returned during the period when the mediation agreement was being used.

Ruling

The court concluded that fewer than ten individuals were eligible to participate, so the class did not satisfy the numerosity requirement for class certification. The court further stated that efforts by other employees to avoid arbitration based on incomplete documents, missing signatures, or unfairness arguments would increase the need for individualized inquiries. The court noted that this also raised questions about Garcia’s adequacy and typicality as class representative for employees who were not subject to arbitration. It rejected Garcia’s contention that she had raised an unfairness challenge to arbitration, explaining that she had identified possible procedural unfairness but had not sought relief on that basis or addressed substantive unfairness.

Judge Richard Seeborg granted the motion to decertify the class and vacated the prior order granting class certification.