Legal Opinion

Rymel v. Save Mart Supermarkets, Inc.

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided December 31, 2018No. C085863; C085865; C085886PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDuarte, J.

*855Plaintiffs Jose Robles, Christopher Rymel, and David Hagins sued defendant Save Mart Supermarkets, Inc., alleging various state law statutory employment claims. After successfully moving to sever, Save Mart moved to compel arbitration as to each plaintiff. The motions were heard *856together, and the trial court denied the motions by substantively identical orders. Save Mart timely appealed in each case. The appeals lie. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1294, subd. (a).) We consolidated the appeals for oral argument and decision and shall affirm the orders denying the motions to compel arbitration.

BACKGROU…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Livadas v. BradshawSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. Kobold v. Good Samaritan Regional Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
  4. Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
  5. Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass'n v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Justin Bartlett v. All American AsphaltDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2020
  2. Nolte Sheet Metal v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Bd.California Court of Appeal · 2020
  3. Tayyar v. E&N Financial Services & Development, Inc. CA2/5California Court of Appeal · 2021
  4. Umair Wasim v. U.S. Foodservice, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2025

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API