DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25STCV38035·la·Civil·Wage and Hour Class Action / PAGA
Hearing in 4 daysGRANTED

Jaleesa Fletcher v. Sadler Healthcare, Inc.

Motion to compel arbitration

Hearing date
Sep 15, 2026
Department
1
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffJaleesa Fletcher
DefendantSadler Healthcare, Inc.

Ruling

(Spring Street Courthouse: Dept. 1) September 15, 2026 DEPARTMENT 1 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

is a wage and hour putative class and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action. Plaintiff Jaleesa Fletcher (Plaintiff) alleges that she and others were employed by defendant Sadler Healthcare, Inc., during which employment Defendant committed various violations of labor law. Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff's claims to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement she purportedly signed (the Agreement). Defendant presents the signed Agreement, bearing its initial burden under Iyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) 87 Cal.App.5 th 747, 755. (See Oliveros Decl., Ex.

A [Agreement].) The Agreement provides that "Proceedings pursuant to this Agreement shall be determined exclusively under the Federal Arbitration Act and in conformity with the procedures of the California Arbitration Act[.]" (Id., p. 1.) Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion. The motion is in order and will be granted. Plaintiff is required to arbitrate her individual claims against Defendant, including her individual PAGA claims. Her class claims are dismissed. Her non-individual PAGA claims remain stayed in this Court.

The Court will set a further date for an arbitration status conference at the hearing on this motion. Defendant to give notice. | Home -->)" -->

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share