Case Name: DirecTV Wage and Hour Cases
Case No.: JCCP 4850

This coordinated putative class action arises out of various alleged Labor Code violations.

On September 23, 2015, the Court issued an order granting defendant DirecTV’s (“Defendant”) motion to compel arbitration of individual claims and dismiss all class claims against plaintiff Daniel Duran. On July 11, 2016, the Court issued an order granting Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff Carl Britschgi’s individual claims and dismiss class claims. Britschgi moved for reconsideration of that order based on the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 2016 WL 4045008, which was issued on July 28, 2016. Duran joined in the motion.

Britschgi argued that the Sandquist decision directly conflicted with this Court’s July 11 order and required that the Court reconsider and modify the order to hold that the arbitrator should decide in this case whether class arbitration is permissible. This Court ultimately agreed and granted Britschgi’s motion.

With regard to Duran’s joinder, however, the Court found that Duran was not a party to the motion to compel arbitration pertaining to Britschgi, so any ruling on Britschgi’s motion for reconsideration would have no impact on Duran. The Court stated further that the order for which Duran would actually want reconsideration was filed on September 23, 2015, but that Duran had filed an appeal to that order, so proceedings related to the order appealed from were stayed and the Court could not modify the order at that time. (See Code Civ. Proc, § 916, subd. (a).)

Duran has now filed his own motion for reconsideration of the September 23, 2015 order. Duran states that he has dismissed his appeal. Therefore, the Court can now reconsider and modify the September 23, 2015 order if there is a basis for doing so.

Defendant opposes the motion for reconsideration. Defendant’s arguments in opposition to this motion, however, are very similar to those made in connection with Defendant’s opposition to Britschgi’s motion for reconsideration. As pointed out by Duran, the form of arbitration agreement at issue here is the same as the agreement to which Britschgi is a signatory. The Court’s analysis regarding Britschgi’s motion for reconsideration is equally applicable to Duran’s motion. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in connection with Britschgi’s motion, Duran’s motion is GRANTED.