Bahamonde v. Amazon.com Services LLC

Background

Plaintiffs sued Amplio Logistics, LLC and Amazon.com Services, LLC in a proposed class action alleging violations of California’s Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law. The case was removed from state court under the Class Action Fairness Act.

In an earlier order, the court compelled arbitration of all of plaintiffs’ causes of action except the ninth cause of action, which sought unpaid vacation upon termination under California Labor Code section 227.3. The court also invalidated the arbitration agreement’s class-action waiver. The earlier order stayed litigation of the claims sent to arbitration but did not address how the parties should proceed with the non-arbitrable claim.

Arbitration of Class Claims

The defendants asked the court to clarify that the class claims could not be compelled to arbitration. The court agreed. It held that the arbitration agreement clearly stated that no arbitrator could hear a claim on a class basis and that no claim could proceed in arbitration as a class action. The agreement also required a court to decide disputes about the validity, enforceability, or interpretation of its class, collective, and representative-action waiver provisions.

The court concluded that the agreement did not include an agreement to arbitrate class claims, even though the court had found the class-action waiver unenforceable. The plaintiffs did not contend that the defendants had separately agreed to class arbitration. As a result, the class claims were not sent to arbitration and remained in this court while the individual claims proceeded in arbitration.

Stay of Court Proceedings

California Civil Procedure Code section 1281.4 requires a court to stay a non-arbitrable court proceeding when an issue in that proceeding is also involved in claims ordered to arbitration. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ individual arbitration and the remaining court claims shared the issue of whether Amazon employed the plaintiffs. Amazon disputed that it employed them. The court found that this shared issue required a stay.

The court therefore did not allow the class action to continue in court at this time. It stayed the class claims and the California Labor Code section 227.3 claim while the plaintiffs’ individual claims proceed in arbitration.

Disposition

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley vacated the December 4, 2025 hearing and granted the defendants’ motion to stay the case pending arbitration of the plaintiffs’ individual claims, except the section 227.3 claim. The judge also granted the defendants’ motion to clarify that the class claims were not compelled to arbitration and were instead stayed in court. The parties must jointly provide a written update on the arbitration’s status by June 1, 2026. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 35, 36, 39, 46, 48, and 49.