Appellate Court Reverses Denial of Arbitration in Barajas v. Justin Vineyards & Winery
On May 14, 2024, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District reviewed the case of Olivia Barajas et al. v. Justin Vineyards & Winery, LLC (Case No. B3825886). The complaint was initially filed by former employees Olivia Barajas, William Fuentes, Blanca Verduzco, and Patricia Verduzco in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court in 2019 against their employer, Justin Vineyards & Winery, LLC.
The plaintiffs alleged that they were misled into signing English-language arbitration agreements that they did not understand due to their limited proficiency in English. These agreements were purportedly signed during their hiring process and subsequent promotions at the winery located in Paso Robles. The plaintiffs argued that these agreements were void due to fraud in the execution and also claimed unconscionability.
According to court documents, the arbitration agreements included a mutual agreement to arbitrate any disputes arising from employment with the company. However, the plaintiffs contended that they were unaware of this clause because it was not adequately translated or explained to them at the time of signing. They testified that a fellow employee provided only rudimentary translations during orientation and that key terms such as "arbitration" were never mentioned.
In December 2022, the trial court denied Justin Vineyards' motion to compel arbitration based on findings of fraud in execution. The court noted that none of the plaintiffs spoke or understood English well enough to comprehend the documents they signed and criticized Justin Vineyards for not providing Spanish-language versions despite having a significant number of Spanish-speaking employees.
The appellate court's decision reversed this ruling, emphasizing that there was insufficient evidence of misrepresentation by Justin Vineyards regarding the nature of the documents signed by the plaintiffs. The court acknowledged socio-economic factors affecting immigrant workers but held firm on contract law principles requiring clear evidence of misrepresentation for claims of fraud in execution.
The appellate court also left open whether respondents’ alternative defenses such as unconscionability should be reconsidered by the trial court upon remand.
Representing the plaintiffs were attorneys Stan S. Mallison, Hector R. Martinez, and Gonzalo Quezada from Mallison & Martinez law firm. Defendant Justin Vineyards & Winery was represented by Lisa A. Stilson, Jenna W. Logoluso, and Matthew Onyett from Roll Law Group.
The case has been remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion under Judge Tana L. Coates at San Luis Obispo County Superior Court.