DISCUSSION Appellants challenge in California

2023(LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court (2012) 55 Cal.4th 275, 279 (LeFiell Manufacturing).) 3 DISCUSSION Appellants challenge both of the trial court’s grounds for granting summary judgment.

2023(LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court (2012) 55 Cal.4th 275, 279 (LeFiell Manufacturing).) 3 DISCUSSION Appellants challenge both of the trial court’s grounds for granting summary judgment.

2022The governing standard of review is “long-settled.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 (Blank).) “When a demurrer is sustained, we determine [de novo] whether the complaint states facts sufficient to 2 While the record includes both an opposition to the demurrer filed by appellants, as well as a reply filed by SN Servicing and ZBS, the trial court’s order states that the demurrer was “unopposed.” 3We take judicial notice of the third amended complaint on our own motion.

2019Filing this claim was respondent’s first step in obtaining what is known as “a Berman hearing, a dispute resolution forum established by the Legislature to assist employees in recovering wages owed.” (Sonic-Calabasas A., Inc. v. Moreno (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1109, 1126 (Sonic II); see §§ 98–98.8.) 4 OnTrac and Marilucy Soares, defendants in the Labor Commission claim, did not join in the filing of the petition to compel arbitration. 4 DISCUSSION Appellants challenge the trial court’s findings that the arbitration clause in the Agreement between SCI and respondent is (1) procedurally and substantive

2011DHCS claims the dispute in this case was resolved by Kizer v. Hanna (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1, 6 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 412 , 767 P.2d 679 ] (Hanna) and Begil, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at page 644 .

2011DHCS claims the dispute in this case was resolved by Kizer v. Hanna (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1, 6 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 412 , 767 P.2d 679 ] (Hanna) and Begil, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at page 644 .

2010(International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal, Inc. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 287, 293 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 456 ].) Discussion Appellants’ challenge to the Conservancy’s funding grant is narrow.

2010(International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal, Inc. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 287, 293 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 456 ].) Discussion Appellants’ challenge to the Conservancy’s funding grant is narrow.

2006In particular, appellants claim that section 31639.7 7 requires that the Association allow them to purchase safety member credit for service performed prior to the effective date of section 31469.4 in the County. 8 Accordingly, appellants claim the trial court erred in granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment. *1344 I Standard of Review “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), summary judgment is proper where the papers submitted demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Bar

2006In particular, appellants claim that section 31639.7 7 requires that the Association allow them to purchase safety member credit for service performed prior to the effective date of section 31469.4 in the County. 8 Accordingly, appellants claim the trial court erred in granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment. *1344 I Standard of Review “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), summary judgment is proper where the papers submitted demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Bar

2006In particular, appellants claim that section 31639.7 7 requires that the Association allow them to purchase safety member credit for service performed prior to the effective date of section 31469.4 in the County. 8 Accordingly, appellants claim the trial court erred in granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment. *1344 I Standard of Review “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), summary judgment is proper where the papers submitted demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Bar

2006In particular, appellants claim that section 31639.7 7 requires that the Association allow them to purchase safety member credit for service performed prior to the effective date of section 31469.4 in the County. 8 Accordingly, appellants claim the trial court erred in granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment. *1344 I Standard of Review “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), summary judgment is proper where the papers submitted demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Bar

2006In particular, appellants claim that section 31639.7 7 requires that the Association allow them to purchase safety member credit for service performed prior to the effective date of section 31469.4 in the County. 8 Accordingly, appellants claim the trial court erred in granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment. *1344 I Standard of Review “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), summary judgment is proper where the papers submitted demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Bar

2006In particular, appellants claim that section 31639.7 7 requires that the Association allow them to purchase safety member credit for service performed prior to the effective date of section 31469.4 in the County. 8 Accordingly, appellants claim the trial court erred in granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment. *1344 I Standard of Review “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), summary judgment is proper where the papers submitted demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Bar

2006In particular, appellants claim that section 31639.7 7 requires that the Association allow them to purchase safety member credit for service performed prior to the effective date of section 31469.4 in the County. 8 Accordingly, appellants claim the trial court erred in granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment. *1344 I Standard of Review “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), summary judgment is proper where the papers submitted demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Bar

2006In particular, appellants claim that section 31639.7 7 requires that the Association allow them to purchase safety member credit for service performed prior to the effective date of section 31469.4 in the County. 8 Accordingly, appellants claim the trial court erred in granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment. *1344 I Standard of Review “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), summary judgment is proper where the papers submitted demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Bar

2006In particular, appellants claim that section 31639.7 7 requires that the Association allow them to purchase safety member credit for service performed prior to the effective date of section 31469.4 in the County. 8 Accordingly, appellants claim the trial court erred in granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment. *1344 I Standard of Review “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), summary judgment is proper where the papers submitted demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Bar

2006In particular, appellants claim that section 31639.7 7 requires that the Association allow them to purchase safety member credit for service performed prior to the effective date of section 31469.4 in the County. 8 Accordingly, appellants claim the trial court erred in granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment. *1344 I Standard of Review “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), summary judgment is proper where the papers submitted demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Bar

2005“An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding, the primary purpose of which is to obtain the possession of real property in the situations specified by statute. [Citations.] The statutory procedure must be strictly followed. [Citation.] The sole issue before the court is the right to possession; accordingly, a defendant is not permitted to file a cross-complaint or counterclaim and, ‘a defense normally permitted because it “arises out of the subject matter” of the original suit is generally excluded ... if such defense is extrinsic to the narrow issue of possession. . . .’ [Citation.]”

2005“An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding, the primary purpose of which is to obtain the possession of real property in the situations specified by statute. [Citations.] The statutory procedure must be strictly followed. [Citation.] The sole issue before the court is the right to possession; accordingly, a defendant is not permitted to file a cross-complaint or counterclaim and, ‘a defense normally permitted because it “arises out of the subject matter” of the original suit is generally excluded ... if such defense is extrinsic to the narrow issue of possession. . . .’ [Citation.]”

2005“An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding, the primary purpose of which is to obtain the possession of real property in the situations specified by statute. [Citations.] The statutory procedure must be strictly followed. [Citation.] The sole issue before the court is the right to possession; accordingly, a defendant is not permitted to file a cross-complaint or counterclaim and, ‘a defense normally permitted because it “arises out of the subject matter” of the original suit is generally excluded ... if such defense is extrinsic to the narrow issue of possession. . . .’ [Citation.]”

2005“An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding, the primary purpose of which is to obtain the possession of real property in the situations specified by statute. [Citations.] The statutory procedure must be strictly followed. [Citation.] The sole issue before the court is the right to possession; accordingly, a defendant is not permitted to file a cross-complaint or counterclaim and, ‘a defense normally permitted because it “arises out of the subject matter” of the original suit is generally excluded ... if such defense is extrinsic to the narrow issue of possession. . . .’ [Citation.]”

2005“An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding, the primary purpose of which is to obtain the possession of real property in the situations specified by statute. [Citations.] The statutory procedure must be strictly followed. [Citation.] The sole issue before the court is the right to possession; accordingly, a defendant is not permitted to file a cross-complaint or counterclaim and, ‘a defense normally permitted because it “arises out of the subject matter” of the original suit is generally excluded ... if such defense is extrinsic to the narrow issue of possession. . . .’ [Citation.]”

2005“An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding, the primary purpose of which is to obtain the possession of real property in the situations specified by statute. [Citations.] The statutory procedure must be strictly followed. [Citation.] The sole issue before the court is the right to possession; accordingly, a defendant is not permitted to file a cross-complaint or counterclaim and, ‘a defense normally permitted because it “arises out of the subject matter” of the original suit is generally excluded ... if such defense is extrinsic to the narrow issue of possession. . . .’ [Citation.]”

2005“An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding, the primary purpose of which is to obtain the possession of real property in the situations specified by statute. [Citations.] The statutory procedure must be strictly followed. [Citation.] The sole issue before the court is the right to possession; accordingly, a defendant is not permitted to file a cross-complaint or counterclaim and, ‘a defense normally permitted because it “arises out of the subject matter” of the original suit is generally excluded ... if such defense is extrinsic to the narrow issue of possession. . . .’ [Citation.]”