Cortez v. Cambridge Real Estate Services, Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-07332
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Cortez v. Cambridge, Judge Gilliam compelled arbitration of Alberto Cortez’s individual employment claims, dismissed class claims, and denied remand.
Alberto Cortez’s individual employment claims must proceed in arbitration, while his proposed class claims were dismissed; Cambridge Real Estate Services, Inc. obtained the arbitration order.
What happened
In Cortez v. Cambridge Real Estate Services, Inc., Alberto Cortez brought ten employment-related claims, including individual and proposed class claims. Cambridge argued that an arbitration agreement Cortez signed when he was hired required arbitration.
The court found that the agreement was valid and covered Cortez’s individual claims, so it granted Cambridge’s motion to compel arbitration as to those claims. The court found the agreement ambiguous about class arbitration and ruled that the proposed class claims could not be arbitrated. Because Cortez could not continue as a class representative after his individual claims were sent to arbitration, the court dismissed the proposed class claims.
Judge Gilliam denied Cortez’s request to send the individual claims back to state court because those claims were being arbitrated. The remainder of the case was stayed while arbitration proceeded, the case was administratively closed, and the parties were ordered to file periodic status reports.
The detailed version
- Cortez v. Cambridge Real Estate Services, Inc. · No. 4:22-cv-07332
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 16, 2023
Background
Alberto Cortez brought a proposed class action against Cambridge Real Estate Services, Inc., asserting ten claims arising from his employment. The claims concerned minimum wages, overtime, meal and rest periods, wage statements, allegedly unlawful wage deductions or payment practices, reimbursement of business expenses, and California’s unfair-competition law. The case was initially filed in state court and later removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act.
Cambridge moved to compel arbitration of Cortez’s individual claims and to dismiss his proposed class claims. Cortez opposed the motion and also requested remand to state court.
Arbitration Agreement
Cortez signed an arbitration agreement on April 1, 2019, the day Cambridge hired him. The agreement covered “any and all previously unasserted claims, disputes, lawsuits or controversies” arising from his job application, employment, or the end of his employment. It required those disputes to be submitted to binding arbitration.
The court applied California contract-formation law and held that Cambridge proved the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement. A Cambridge human-resources consultant authenticated the agreement and stated that Cortez signed it. The court also noted that Cortez did not challenge the authenticity of his handwritten signature.
The court therefore granted Cambridge’s motion to compel arbitration as to Cortez’s individual claims.
Proposed Class Claims
The court ruled that the agreement did not clearly authorize class arbitration. Although the agreement referred broadly to “any and all claims, actions, or lawsuits,” it did not specifically address class claims. Under the governing rule, class arbitration requires express consent; silence or ambiguity is not enough. The court found that the agreement could reasonably be read to cover only individual claims or to include class claims, making the provision ambiguous.
The court accordingly found that the proposed class claims could not be arbitrated. Because Cortez’s individual claims were compelled to arbitration, he could no longer serve as the class representative. The court dismissed the proposed class claims because no class representative remained to pursue them.
Request for Remand
The court denied Cortez’s request for remand. It concluded that Cambridge removed the case within the deadline provided by the federal removal statute. The court also rejected Cortez’s argument that the individual claims should be returned to state court because those claims had been compelled to arbitration, leaving no individual claims to remand.
Disposition
The court granted Cambridge’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed Cortez’s proposed class claims. The remainder of the case was stayed pending arbitration. The parties were ordered to file a joint status report about the arbitration 120 days after the order and every 120 days afterward unless the court ordered otherwise. The Clerk was directed to administratively close the case.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.