Luna v. Davey Tree Surgery Company
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:23-cv-00822
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Luna v. Davey Tree Surgery Company, Judge Cousins dismissed seven claims without prejudice and remanded the remaining action to state court.
Angel Luna, his proposed class members, and Davey Tree Surgery Company. Luna’s first seven individual and proposed class claims were dismissed without prejudice, while the entire action, including the remaining Private Attorneys General Act claim, was remanded to state court.
What happened
Angel Luna sued Davey Tree Surgery Company in a proposed class action, alleging seven California wage-and-hour claims and one claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act. Davey Tree removed the case to federal court.
The parties agreed that Luna’s first seven claims, both his individual claims and the proposed class claims, should be dismissed without prejudice because arbitration agreements covered them. No class had been certified, and the parties disputed whether arbitration affected the remaining Private Attorneys General Act claim.
Judge Cousins ordered the first seven causes of action dismissed without prejudice in both capacities and remanded the entire action to Santa Cruz County Superior Court. The order did not dismiss the eighth, Private Attorneys General Act claim.
The detailed version
- Luna v. Davey Tree Surgery Company · No. 5:23-cv-00822
- Nathanael Cousins
- Feb. 28, 2023
Background
Angel Luna filed a proposed class action against Davey Tree Surgery Company in Santa Cruz County Superior Court. The complaint asserted eight causes of action:
- Unpaid wages for all hours worked;
- Unpaid overtime;
- Failure to provide required meal and rest breaks;
- Failure to reimburse business expenses;
- Inaccurate wage statements;
- Waiting-time penalties;
- Unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 and following; and
- A claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, which allows an aggrieved employee to seek certain civil penalties on behalf of the employee and other affected workers.
The first seven claims were brought on Luna’s own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of current and former nonexempt hourly employees or similar workers. Davey Tree removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act.
Parties’ Agreement
The parties stated that Luna had signed arbitration agreements on April 29, 2019, and December 27, 2021. They agreed that those agreements covered the first through seventh causes of action, both as to Luna’s individual claims and the proposed class claims. Luna therefore sought dismissal of those claims without prejudice, and Davey Tree agreed.
The parties stated that no class had been certified and that no notice had been provided to other current or former Davey Tree employees. They also disputed how the arbitration agreements affected the remaining Private Attorneys General Act claim. Davey Tree reserved the right to seek an order requiring arbitration of claims in the complaint, including the Private Attorneys General Act claim, and Luna agreed not to argue that Davey Tree waived arbitration by entering into the stipulation.
The parties further agreed that, after dismissal of the first seven causes of action, the case would no longer satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act. They jointly requested remand to Santa Cruz County Superior Court.
Ruling
Judge Nathaneal M. Cousins found good cause and ordered:
- The first through seventh causes of action dismissed without prejudice to the extent they were brought on an individual basis; - The first through seventh causes of action dismissed without prejudice to the extent they were brought on behalf of a proposed class; and - The entire action remanded to the Superior Court of California for Santa Cruz County.
The order did not dismiss the eighth cause of action, the Private Attorneys General Act claim. It also did not decide the parties’ dispute about whether that claim must be arbitrated. Because the court remanded the action, the remaining claim proceeded in state court according to the order.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it dismissed claims without reaching their underlying merits and remanded the action to state court.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.