Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV01946, Date: 2024-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01946    Hearing Date: August 2, 2024    Dept: 52

Defendants’ Petition to Compel Arbitration

Defendants Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc., Simplified Transportation Solutions, LLC, and Simplified Transport LLC petition to compel arbitration of this action by plaintiff Larry Giovannini. 

Plaintiff argues he may elect to invalidate the arbitration agreement under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA).  The EFAA provides: “[A]t the election of the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute, … no predispute arbitration agreement … shall be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to the sexual assault dispute or the sexual harassment dispute.”  (9 U.S.C. § 402(a).)  This statute amends the FAA (Murrey v. Superior Court (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1223, 1234) and “voids predispute arbitration clauses in cases … involving sexual harassment allegations” (id. at p. 1230). 

Defendants contend that to invoke the EFAA, plaintiff must prove the parties’ arbitration agreement evidences interstate commerce such that the FAA applies.  The FAA applies “to contracts evidencing interstate commerce.”  (Hoover v. American Income Life Ins. Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1207.)  The party seeking to apply the FAA bears “the burden to demonstrate FAA coverage by declarations and other evidence.”  (Ibid.)

The court will exercise its discretion to require further briefing on this issue.  Plaintiff did not have a full opportunity to be heard on the issue.  Plaintiff’s opposition argued the EFAA applies, and defendants’ reply argued otherwise for the first time.  The court will give plaintiff an opportunity to respond to defendants’ contentions. 

Moreover, defendants’ petition to compel arbitration and amended petition to compel arbitration include no memorandum of points and authorities nor any supporting evidence.  Both the petition and amended petition state, “Said application shall be made by this Petition and a Notice of Hearing of Petition supported by a Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declarations and Exhibits.”  (¶ 8.)  Defendants did not submit any such supporting papers.   

Though defendants title their papers a petition, in this pending action they substantively constitute a motion.  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(a) provides, “A party filing a motion, except for a motion listed in rule 3.1114, must serve and file a supporting memorandum.  The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion or special demurrer is not meritorious and cause for its denial.”  Rule 3.1114 (a) lists numerous “motions, applications, and petitions filed on Judicial Council forms that do not require a memorandum”, not including petitions to compel arbitration. 

Defendants’ lack of a memorandum and supporting evidence precludes the court from adequately considering the petition.  Rather than providing a copy of the arbitration agreement as an exhibit, the unverified petition merely alleges what the agreement states.  (Petition, ¶ 2.)  The text included does not define “the Company” or otherwise identify the parties to the agreement.  Plaintiff’s pleadings allege at least one of the defendants is a Delaware business entity.  (FAC, ¶ 3.)  Which parties agreed to arbitrate may be relevant to whether the contract evidences interstate commerce. 

Disposition

            The court hereby continues the hearing on defendants’ petition to compel arbitration to August 30, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.  Plaintiff shall file any supplemental opposition no later than August 19.  Defendants shall file any supplemental reply no later than August 23.