Uber Can’t Compel Arbitration of PAGA Claim According to California Court Friday, April 30, 2021
On April 21, 2021, the Second Appellate District of the Court of Appeal of the State of California filed an unpublished opinion rejecting Uber’s attempt to enforce an arbitration provision that waived an employee’s right to bring a claim under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). This statute authorizes “aggrieved employees” to file lawsuits to recover civil penalties from employers for violations of the California labor code.
The plaintiff, Jonathan Gregg, filed a lawsuit against Uber in August 2018, alleging that the ride-share company “willfully misclassified him as an independent contractor rather than an employee,” which led to violations of California Wage Order 9-2001 and several other Labor Code provisions that triggered his rights under PAGA. In response to the suit, Uber filed a motion to compel arbitration under the Arbitration Pr
LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) – Two is a trend, for people injured by products they bought on Amazon who want to sue the retailer.
Filed April 26, a ruling by California’s Second Appellate District follows a previous one by the Fourth, holding that even though an allegedly defective product was made and sold by another company, Amazon can still be sued for providing the marketplace.
The Fourth District found Amazon to be “an integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise.” The Second District agreed, overturning a Los Angeles Superior Court victory for the company.
“Amazon provides no legal support for its argument that negligent products liability may only be imposed on manufacturers and sellers,” Justice Sam Ohta wrote. “Instead, a duty of care may be imposed on a defendant who is not a manufacturer or seller in the context of a negligent products liability claim if certain factors are met.”
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
In two prior blog posts, we covered how online marketplaces, like Amazon, are being held responsible for defective and counterfeit products sold on their platforms. In the latest development in this space, California’s Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) determined that Amazon could be held strictly liable for injuries a consumer suffered from a defective hoverboard she bought from the retailer, even though Amazon neither manufactured nor sold the product.
The plaintiff in this latest case, Kisha Loomis, bought a hoverboard through the Amazon marketplace. The Amazon marketplace carries both products sold by Amazon and by third parties. In this case, the hoverboard was sold by a Chinese company called SMILETO. Loomis gave the hoverboard to her son, who charged it in her bedroom. Then the hoverboard and plaintiff’s bedroom caught fire. Fighting the fire, plaintiff suffered burns to her hand and foot.�
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
In two prior blog posts, we covered how online marketplaces, like Amazon, are being held responsible for defective and counterfeit products sold on their platforms. In the latest development in this space, California’s Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) determined that Amazon could be held strictly liable for injuries a consumer suffered from a defective hoverboard she bought from the retailer, even though Amazon neither manufactured nor sold the product.
The plaintiff in this latest case, Kisha Loomis, bought a hoverboard through the Amazon marketplace. The Amazon marketplace carries both products sold by Amazon and by third parties. In this case, the hoverboard was sold by a Chinese company called SMILETO. Loomis gave the hoverboard to her son, who charged it in her bedroom. Then the hoverboard and plaintiff’s bedroom caught fire. Fighting the fire, plaintiff suffered burns to her hand and foot. She sued Amazon for pr
(AP Photo/Michel Spingler, File)
(CN) As the world’s largest commercial “river,” Amazon.com can be sued when customers sustain injuries from defective products sold by third parties on its website, a state appellate panel has ruled.
“The Amazon is the world’s largest river. Amazon.com supposedly chose its trademark because it aimed to create the world’s largest river of commerce. Amazon.com can control what it created,” Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. wrote in a concurring opinion from the Second Appellate District panel Monday.
“Once Amazon is convinced it will be holding the bag on these accidents, this motivation will prompt it to engineer effective ways to minimize these accident costs.”