{"id":93,"date":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=93"},"modified":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","slug":"sierra-pacific-industries-wage-hour-cases-c099436-arbitration-waiver","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=93","title":{"rendered":"Sierra Pacific Industries Wage and Hour Cases \u2014 Defendant Waived Right to Compel Arbitration by Litigating for Years and Hiding Agreements"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Sierra Pacific Industries Wage and Hour Cases<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
3rd District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-06<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
C099436<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Arbitration, Waiver, Wage and Hour Class Action, Discovery Sanctions, JCCP Coordination<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Plaintiff Patricia McDonald filed a wage-and-hour class action against Sierra Pacific Industries in October 2018. The litigation was eventually coordinated as the Sierra Pacific Industries Wage and Hour Cases (JCCP No. 5235) and proceeded through years of discovery and pretrial motion practice. Sierra Pacific said nothing about arbitration during that period and refused to produce signed arbitration agreements that putative class members had executed, even after the trial court ordered it to do so.<\/p>\n

In November 2022, the trial court certified eight plaintiff classes. In the months that followed, Sierra Pacific produced more than 3,000 signed arbitration agreements and immediately moved to compel arbitration. The plaintiffs, joined by additional named representatives, opposed the motion and sought evidentiary and issue sanctions for the company’s failure to produce the agreements during years of discovery.<\/p>\n

The trial court denied Sierra Pacific’s motion to compel arbitration on waiver grounds and granted the plaintiffs’ sanctions motion. Sierra Pacific appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal affirmed. Under California law (and consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s clarification in Morgan v. Sundance), waiver of a contractual right to arbitrate does not require a showing of prejudice to the opposing party. Waiver instead turns on whether the party seeking arbitration acted inconsistently with that right.<\/p>\n

Sierra Pacific did exactly that. It litigated for over four years, contested class certification, conducted substantial discovery, and refused to produce the very agreements it now sought to enforce. Its conduct was not consistent with intent to invoke arbitration. Once the trial court ruled adversely on class certification, the company could not pivot and demand arbitration of the same claims it had been litigating in court.<\/p>\n

The court also affirmed the discovery sanctions. Sierra Pacific had defied a court order to produce the arbitration agreements, and the prejudicial impact on the plaintiffs supported the trial court’s evidentiary and issue sanctions, including precluding Sierra Pacific from later relying on those agreements.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n