Case Update: Court of Appeal Affirms—Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable in Velarde v. Monroe Operations, LLC (2025) 111 Cal. App. 5th 1009

Pletcher Law Leads Successful Appellate Briefing Defeating Forced Arbitration

I am proud to announce a major appellate victory in Velarde v. Monroe Operations, LLC (2025) — a published decision in which the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Pletcher Law, APC handled the appellate briefing in this case in collaboration with Law Offices of Reisner & King LLP, securing an opinion that strengthens protections for employees facing unfair and deceptive arbitration practices.

This decision is now one of the strongest recent examples of courts scrutinizing workplace arbitration agreements and refusing to enforce them when employers use misleading, rushed, or oppressive onboarding practices.

A Victory Built on Strategic Appellate Advocacy

In handling the appellate briefing, our focus was on exposing the employer's improper onboarding tactics and the inherent unfairness of the arbitration terms. The Court of Appeal agreed.

Key Findings in the Opinion

• The arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because the employee was required to sign over 30 documents in a rushed, high-pressure onboarding environment while an HR representative waited.

• The employer's representative made misleading statements downplaying the nature of the documents and failing to disclose the binding arbitration clause.

• The agreement's terms created substantive unconscionability, imposing unfair and unexpected burdens on the employee.

• Based on this combination of procedural and substantive flaws, the court held the arbitration agreement unenforceable and affirmed the denial of the motion to compel.

This published opinion offers plaintiff's attorneys powerful support for defeating similar arbitration agreements statewide.

Why This Matters for Plaintiff's Firms

Velarde reinforces that arbitration agreements are not inevitable. With the right strategy — especially at the appellate level — plaintiff's firms can protect their cases from being siphoned into confidential, defense-friendly forums.

For firms facing arbitration issues, this decision presents several opportunities:

1. Stronger Unconscionability Arguments

The court's analysis gives plaintiff attorneys a roadmap for attacking rushed onboarding procedures, hidden arbitration clauses, and employer misrepresentations.

2. Better Positioning for Trial Court Opposition

This case arms trial counsel with persuasive authority when drafting oppositions to motions to compel arbitration.

3. Clear Need for Appellate Specialists

Arbitration rulings often succeed or fail at the appellate stage. Having appellate counsel step in early — or handle the appeal entirely — can make the difference between losing a case to arbitration and keeping it in front of a jury.

How Pletcher Law Can Support Your Firm on Appeal

I regularly partner with plaintiff's firms throughout California to handle:

• Appeals involving arbitration agreements

• Writs challenging orders compelling arbitration

• Post-trial appeals

• Complex motion work that preserves issues for appeal

Whether you need full appellate representation, co-counsel support, or help drafting or refining briefing, I'm available to collaborate.

If your firm has an arbitration ruling that needs to be challenged — or defended — on appeal, contact me.

I'm glad to review the order, evaluate appellate options, and discuss strategy.