Vanessa Rivera v. Uhs of Delaware, Inc. , 705 F. App'x 593 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 1 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VANESSA RIVERA, as an individual and No. 15-56972
on behalf of all employees similarly situated,
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-00863-JGB-DTB
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. MEMORANDUM*
UHS OF DELAWARE, INC., DBA
Universal Health Services of Delaware, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: NGUYEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG,*** District
Judge.
UHS of Delaware, Inc. appeals the district court’s order finding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Richard Seeborg, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
unenforceable a provision in an arbitration agreement that waives representative
claims under California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). Reviewing the
order de novo, see Kilgore v. KeyBank, Nat’l Ass’n, 718 F.3d 1052, 1057 (9th Cir.
2013) (en banc) (citation omitted), we affirm.1
UHS argues that DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 136 S. Ct. 463 (2015), abrogated
Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015), and
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), and
therefore the district court’s reliance on Sakkab and Iskanian was erroneous. We
disagree and conclude that Imburgia is not clearly irreconcilable with Sakkab or
Iskanian. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
Imburgia simply held that a California court failed to place arbitration contracts
“on equal footing with all other contracts” when it interpreted a choice-of-law
provision in an arbitration agreement. 136 S. Ct. at 468–71 (quoting Buckeye
Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 443 (2006)). Sakkab and
Iskanian, in contrast, directly addressed the validity of PAGA waivers in
arbitration agreements under state and federal law. Sakkab, 803 F.3d at 431–40;
Iskanian, 59 Cal. 4th at 378–89. Therefore, neither case is undermined by
Imburgia.
1
Because we affirm, we deny Appellee Vanessa Rivera’s motion for
summary affirmance as moot.
2
AFFIRMED.
3