Barba v. Capstone Logistics CA1/5

── Barba v. Capstone Logistics CA1/5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/24/26 Barba v. Capstone Logistics CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE ANGEL BARBA, Plaintiff and Respondent, A173018 v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant and Appellant. ANGEL BARBA, A173020 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG21100895) Defendant and Appellant. Angel Barba filed this action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.; “Private Attorneys General Act” or “the Act”)1 to seek remedies for allegedly unlawful employment practices by Capstone Logistics, LLC, and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. In these consolidated appeals, Capstone and Home Depot challenge the trial court’s denial of their motion to compel arbitration. Because the court correctly denied the motion, we affirm. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Labor Code. 1  BACKGROUND A. In February 2019, Capstone and Barba entered into an arbitration agreement in connection with his employment as a warehouse worker for Capstone. Under the agreement, Barba’s “continued employment with the Company is deemed to be acceptance of this Agreement to Arbitrate.” The “Company” referred to Capstone Logistics, LLC, including “all parent, subsidiary, and affiliate entities, . . . and their owners, directors, officers, managers, employees, or agents.” Barba and “the Company agree[d] to use binding arbitration, instead of going to court, as the sole and exclusive means to resolve any ‘Covered Claims’ that arise or have arisen between” them. Barba and the Company “waiv[ed] and relinquish[ed] [their] respective rights to trial before a judge or jury in federal or state court in favor of arbitration.” The agreement contained provisions specifying “Covered Claims” as well as “Excluded Claims.” The term “Covered Claims” applies to “any claim, dispute, and/or controversy that [Barba] may have against the Company, or that the Company may have against [Barba], whether based on tort, contract, statute . . . , equitable law, or otherwise.” The foregoing term “statute” is further defined as “including, but not limited to, any claims of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, leave, and/or unpaid wages, whether they be based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, or any other similar federal, state, or local law or regulation which may apply to the parties’ employment relationship.” In addition, “Covered Claims include but are not limited to any claim, dispute, and/or controversy that may arise out of or be related in any way to [Barba’s] employment, including but not limited to the 2 termination of [his] employment and [his] compensation. Covered Claims also specifically include but are not limited to any claim, dispute, and/or controversy that [Barba] may have against, or that may be related in any way to the services [he] or the Company provides to, the Company’s business partners or customers and their employees.” “Excluded Claims” are “[t]he only exceptio