Appellant employer sought review of an order of the Superior Court of Los Angles County, California, which denied its motion to compel arbitration of a putative class action complaint filed by respondent delivery driver employee that alleged, inter alia, failure to reimburse job expenses, in violation of Lab. Code, § 2802, and failure to pay minimum wage, in violation of Lab. Code, § 1194.

The trial court determined that a provision in the parties' arbitration agreement prohibiting class arbitration was unenforceable, that other terms were unconscionable, and that the agreement could not be enforced. The court found there was no federal preemption because the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., did not conflict with California law as applied in the case. The enforceability of the arbitration agreement was a question for the trial court to decide, regardless of whether the FAA applied. The Employment lawyer San Bernardino class arbitration waiver was contrary to public policy and unenforceable because it impermissibly interfered with employees' ability to vindicate unwaivable statutory rights. The arbitration agreement was unconscionable. Its arbitrator selection provision was unfairly one-sided and substantively unconscionable. The entire arbitration agreement was unenforceable. The class arbitration waiver and the arbitrator selection clause considered together indicated an effort to impose on an employee a forum with distinct advantages for the employer. The arbitration agreement was permeated by an unlawful purpose. Thus, the denial of the motion to compel arbitration was proper.

The court affirmed the order.

Defendant appealed the judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) convicting him of murder with a special circumstance of pecuniary gain and of conspiracy to commit murder. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Defendant agreed to murder co-conspirator's wife in exchange for half of the victim's life insurance proceeds. Defendant enlisted the aid of a juvenile co-conspirator to commit the murder. After the murder, defendant and victim's husband cajoled and later threatened juvenile not to talk to police. After defendant was convicted of murder, he appealed, arguing that co-conspirator statements made after the murder were inadmissible hearsay, that the jury was not properly instructed on adoptive admissions, and that failure to admit evidence of the juvenile's drug habit was prejudicial. The court affirmed the conviction. The co-conspirator statements made after the murder were admissible under Cal. Evid. Code § 1223 because the conspiracy in trying to collect money on the victim's insurance policy continued after the murder. The court also held that the failure to properly instruct the jury on adoptive admissions or to admit evidence of the juvenile's drug habit was not prejudicial and would not have reasonably affected the  because the adoptive admissions were presented by the juvenile eyewitness and the juvenile's drug habit was already known to the jury.

Conviction of defendant for murder with a pecuniary gain special circumstance and for conspiracy to commit murder was affirmed, because co-conspirator statements made after the murder were not hearsay when the conspiracy was for the purpose of collecting on the victim's life insurance policy rather than for murder act and where the failure to make proper jury instructions on adoptive admissions or to admit habit evidence was harmless error.