ECJ Blogs | Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP: Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

Whose Agreement Is It Anyway? Court of Appeal Rejects Employer’s Attempt to Invoke Staffing Agency Arbitration Provisions By: Jared W. Slater

Jared W. Slater — Tue, 26 May 2026 09:00:01 -0700

In Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., the California Court of Appeal held that a client of a staffing agency could not invoke the agency’s arbitration agreement to compel arbitration of claims arising from the worker’s subsequent period of direct employment with the client.

Robert Toothman was originally hired by Apex Life Sciences, a temporary employment agency, and signed a companion Employment Agreement and Arbitration Agreement covering disputes arising out of his employment with “Company,” defined as “Apex Life Sciences, LLC, a division of On ...

“All” Means All: The Court of Appeal’s Latest Warning on Overbroad Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater

Jared W. Slater — Mon, 11 May 2026 09:00:02 -0700

The recent decision in Stoker v. Blue Origin, LLC is the latest entry in a long line of cases informing the scope and breadth of mandatory arbitration agreements. Although the trial court denied Blue Origin’s motion to compel arbitration based on the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), the Second District affirmed on entirely different grounds, holding the agreement procedurally and substantively unconscionable and refusing to sever the offending provisions. This case is another in a recent trend limiting the ...

Inconsistencies Among Contemporaneous Arbitration Agreements May Not Be Fatal to Enforcement | By Jared W. Slater

Jared W. Slater — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 09:00:03 -0700

Employers often rely on multiple onboarding documents to establish an employee’s obligation to arbitrate employment-related disputes. Unfortunately, that approach can invite a challenge from employees who argue that inconsistencies among the documents defeat mutual assent and void an agreement to arbitrate. In that context, the California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Santana v. Studebaker Health Care Center, LLC highlights the line between “ambiguity,” which courts resolve through contract interpretation, and “uncertainty,” which can actually ...

West Hollywood City Council Votes To Consider Law Prohibiting Discrimination Against Polyamorous Families | By: Catherine A. Veeneman

Catherine A. Veeneman — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 09:00:04 -0700

West Hollywood has taken initial steps towards protecting a broader range of family structures from discrimination. Last month, the City Council unanimously voted 5-0 to introduce an ordinance that would make it illegal to discriminate against someone based on their family or relationship structure, including individuals in multi-partner families, and consensually non-monogamous and polyamorous relationships. If adopted, the ordinance would prohibit discrimination based on an individual’s family or relationship structure in housing, local businesses, city ...

How to prevent an entity in receivership from filing bankruptcy if it was organized out of state. | By: Peter A. Davidson

Peter A. Davidson — Thu, 23 Apr 2026 09:00:05 -0700

Q: I was just appointed receiver by a state court in California. The entity involved is incorporated in New Jersey. I have heard the entity may file bankruptcy in New Jersey. Can it properly do so given my appointment?

A: It depends. Among the key factors are: what you have been appointed receiver over; what the order of appointment provides; what steps you have taken since your appointment; and timing.

This issue was explored in a recent Third Circuit case involving similar issues. In re Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., 152 F. 4th 432 (4th Cir. 2025) (“Whittaker”). Whittaker, Clark & ...

Ninth Circuit Upholds Arbitration Delegation Clause Despite Contrary Severability Language | By: Jared W. Slater

Jared W. Slater — Wed, 08 Apr 2026 09:00:06 -0700

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in Sandler v. Modernizing Medicine, Inc. holds that, in employment arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), a properly drafted delegation clause (appointing an arbitrator, not a judge, to decide challenges to the agreement’s validity) will be upheld. The decision states that it is legal error to rely on California appellate decisions that apply state law to treat boilerplate severability clauses as sufficient to strip a clear delegation provision of its power.

In Sandler, the employee brought ...

From Cook to Ayala‑Ventura: Drawing the Line on “Infinite” Arbitration Clauses | By: Jared W. Slater

Jared W. Slater — Thu, 26 Mar 2026 09:00:07 -0700

California’s Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Ayala‑Ventura v. Superior Court is the first to directly contrast with the Second District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Cook v. University of Southern California. While both cases focus on arbitration agreements of “infinite” duration, Ayala-Ventura stresses the importance of context, industry, and drafting choices, which can mean the difference between an enforceable agreement and one that is struck down as unconscionable.

In Ayala‑Ventura, a janitorial company, CCS Facility Services, required new ...

Employers Use Arbitration Awards to Preclude Private Attorneys General Act Claims | By: Jared W. Slater

Jared W. Slater — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 09:00:08 -0700

California employers are still adjusting to the post‑Adolph Private Attorneys General Act landscape, where individual claims can be compelled to arbitration while a representative PAGA claim proceeds in court. The Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Sorokunov v. NetApp, Inc. is important for its impact on how a defense win in individual arbitration may have a preclusive effect on a concurrent PAGA action pending in Superior Court.

The underlying dispute involved a high‑earning employee subject to a written incentive plan with a “windfall” provision that capped ...

Tiny Fonts, Narrow Holding: California Clarifies When Fine Print Matters | By: Jared W. Slater

Jared W. Slater — Wed, 25 Feb 2026 09:00:09 -0800

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. resolves a growing split among the lower courts over whether tiny, hard‑to‑read print in an arbitration agreement counts as procedural unconscionability, substantive unconscionability, or both. For most of the last decade “fine‑print terms” and near‑illegible print in an arbitration agreements were treated as an indicator of substantive unfairness as well as procedural defects. More recently, the Fuentes Court of Appeal held that “tiny and unreadable print” was a problem only on ...

When Old Privacy Laws Hit Modern Tracking: Salazar v. Paramount Global and the VPPA’s Next Chapter | By: Jeffrey R. Glassman

Jeffrey R. Glassman — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 09:00:10 -0800

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to take Salazar v. Paramount Global (cert. granted January 26, 2026) is more than a technical exercise in statutory interpretation. It is a live example of what happens when a targeted, decades-old privacy statute collides with modern web tracking and digital media business models.

At the center of the case is the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”), enacted in 1988 after the disclosure of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s video rental history. The law was built for a Blockbuster-era world, but it has become newly relevant as plaintiffs ...