Betancourt v. Prudential Overall Supply, No. E064326 (D4d2 Mar. 7, 2017)
Not really sure why this one was published. Straight up holds that PAGA claims can’t be compelled to arbitration because Plaintiff is technically standing in the shoes of the state, qui tam-style. That’s essentially the Supreme Court’s holding in Iskanian, so this doesn’t add much to the mix.
Affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment