Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV38810, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV38810 Hearing Date: March 28, 2024 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
Motion of Defendants Hiffman National of California, Inc.; Hiffman National;
Hiffman Asset Management, LLC; and Nai Hiffman to Compel Arbitration.
BACKGROUND
In this case, Plaintiff KELLEY CLOUD (“Plaintiff”) seeks
damages based on allegations that defendants HIFFMAN NATIONAL OF CALIFORNIA,
INC., HIFFMAN NATIONAL; HIFFMAN ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC; and NAI HIFFMAN (“Defendants”)
discriminated and harassed Plaintiff and wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s
employment, because of Plaintiff’s cancer-related disability and/or medical
condition.
Defendants have filed a motion to compel arbitration. The
Court had previously continued this motion for Plaintiff to have the
opportunity to obtain discovery. Plaintiff filed no opposing memorandum to the
motion to compel arbitration but did file evidentiary objections to two
declarations.
LEGAL STANDARD
A party seeking arbitration has the burden of proving
by a preponderance of evidence that a valid arbitration agreement exists. Ruiz
v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842; see also
§ CCP 1281.2. A party meets its initial
burden simply by reciting the terms of the governing provision, or by attaching
a copy of the provisions, unless there is a dispute over authenticity that is
beyond merely contesting the preliminary showing. Sprunk v. Prisma LLC (2017) 14
Cal.App.5th 785, 793. “Once such a document is presented to the court, the
burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to compel, who may present any
challenges to the enforcement of the agreement and evidence in support of those
challenges.” Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th
1152, 1160.
Where a court has ordered arbitration, it shall stay
the action pending the outcome of the arbitration. Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
The Court sustains Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections
to the Declaration of Bob Assoian, which Plaintiff filed in lieu of an
opposition. The Court overrules Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to the
Declaration of Kerri Joyner, which Plaintiff filed after Defendants’ reply brief.
ANALYSIS
Defendants seek an order compelling arbitration of
Plaintiff’s claims based on a written arbitration agreement covering the
employment allegations in the Complaint, as to all Defendants. See Joyner
Decl., ¶¶ 1-10, Ex. 2; Assoian Decl., ¶¶ 2-3 (not including the portions
subject to evidentiary objections).
To the extent Plaintiff intended to contest the validity
of Plaintiff’s signature on the arbitration agreement by way of filing
objections to the Assoian declaration in lieu of an opposition, this only meant
that Defendants then needed to “establish
by a preponderance of the evidence that the signature was authentic.” Espejo v. So. Cal. Permanente Med. Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1060. Thus,
Defendants’ filing of the Joyner declaration was appropriate to demonstrate the
validity of Plaintiff’s signature, and Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to
the Joyner declaration are not well-taken. Plaintiff’s failure to assert
any evidence or argument contesting the arbitration agreement means that
Defendants have both met and sustained their burden on the motion to compel.
CONCLUSION
The motion is granted. Plaintiff and Defendants shall
arbitrate the controversies between them, including the entire Complaint, in
accordance with their agreement to arbitrate.
This entire case is stayed until such arbitration has been completed.