Legal Opinion
Betancourt v. Prudential Overall Supply
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 7, 2017No. E064326PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MILLER,J.
—Plaintiff and respondent Roberto Betancourt (Betancourt) sued defendant and appellant Prudential Overall Supply (Prudential). Betancourt’s complaint sets forth one cause of action: enforcement of the Labor Code under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). (Lab. Code, § 2698.) Prudential filed a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied Prudential’s motion. Prudential contends the trial court erred. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Complaint
Betancourt alleged the following in his April 2015 complaint: Betancourt was…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- Broughton v. Cigna HealthplansCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Mikes v. StraussDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1995
- Border Business Park, Inc. v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Correia v. NB Baker Elec., Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Julian v. Glenair, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Zakaryan v. Men's Wearhouse, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Saheli v. White Mem'l Med. Ctr., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Barrera v. Apple American Group LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.