Franchising (& Distribution) Currents

According to the court, it would be inequitable to permit Ceballo to litigate while Diaz, who signed the distributor agreement, was forced to arbitrate his "substantially indistinguishable" claims. According to the court, the Eighth Circuit had not made a determinative interpretation of the relevant arbitration issues.\n In its de novo review on appeal, the appellate court first explained that three types of conduct violate § 17200 of the UCL, which must be read disjunctively. According to the court, plaintiff's argument would not have succeeded even if raised earlier because 7-Eleven was not the class members' employer, and only an employer was required to pay wages.