On January 13, 2026, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, issued a published decision in Tuufuli v. West Coast Dental Administrative Services, LLC, affirming a trial court’s order compelling arbitration of an employee’s individual claims and dismissing her class claims against her former employer. The decision provides important guidance on the enforceability of arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the dismissal of class claims pursuant to arbitration provisions. Most favorably, the decision holds that the FAA will be applied where the parties agree that the FAA applies and that the employer will not need to prove that the underlying employment relationship involves interstate commerce.
Quick Hits
- The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s order compelling arbitration of individual employment claims, finding the parties’ arbitration agreement was governed by the FAA.
- The court upheld the dismissal of class claims, as the arbitration agreement expressly prohibited class, collective, or representative proceedings.
- The decision clarifies that parties may voluntarily elect to have the FAA govern their arbitration agreement, regardless of whether the underlying transaction involves interstate commerce.
Background
West Coast Dental Administrative Services (West Coast Dental) manages a network of dental service facilities throughout California, providing administrative and support services to affiliated dental practices. The employee, Sinedou Tuufuli, was hired as a collector and customer service representative in August 2017 and electronically signed an arbitration agreement at the time of hire. The agreement required final and binding arbitration of any employment-related disputes and expressly prohibited the arbitrator from certifying or adjudicating class, collective, or representative claims.
In April 2023, Tuufuli filed a complaint asserting individual and class claims for alleged violations of California labor and business laws. West Coast Dental moved to compel arbitration of the individual claims and to dismiss the class claims, arguing that the arbitration agreement was governed by the FAA. Evidence submitted included the employer’s status as a Delaware corporation, its offices in California and Washington, and its sourcing of materials from outside California.
Tuufuli opposed the motion, contending that the FAA did not apply because her work was performed exclusively in California and did not involve interstate commerce. The trial court granted the employer’s motion, finding the arbitration agreement valid and governed by the FAA, and dismissed the class claims pursuant to the agreement’s express terms.
Key Holdings
FAA Coverage. The appellate court held that the FAA governed the arbitration agreement because the parties “expressly agreed” to its application. The court noted that, under federal and California precedent, parties may voluntarily elect to have the FAA apply to their arbitration agreement, and the presence of interstate commerce is not the sole basis for FAA coverage.
Class Claims Dismissal. The court affirmed the dismissal of class claims, as the arbitration agreement unambiguously prohibited class, collective, or representative proceedings. The court reiterated that the FAA preempts state laws requiring a judicial forum for claims that the parties agreed to arbitrate individually.
Interstate Commerce Not Required. The decision clarifies that, while the FAA applies to contracts involving interstate commerce, parties may also contractually agree to FAA governance even if the underlying transaction does not involve substantial interstate activity.
Key Takeaways
- Arbitration agreements may be governed by the FAA if the parties expressly agree, regardless of whether the employment relationship involves interstate commerce.
- Express prohibitions on class, collective, or representative claims in arbitration agreements are enforceable under the FAA, and courts will dismiss such claims accordingly.
- Employers may want to ensure that arbitration agreements clearly state the governing law and the scope of arbitrable claims, including any limitations on class or representative proceedings.
The appellate court’s decision underscores the importance of precise drafting in arbitration agreements and the enforceability of contractual provisions under the FAA. Employers in California and beyond may want to review their arbitration policies and agreements to ensure compliance with federal and state law and to maximize enforceability of individual arbitration provisions.
