Judge: Brian F. Gasdia, Case: 22NWCV00691, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCV00691 Hearing Date: June 3, 2025 Dept: R
#5
MELENDEZ-RODRIGUEZ v. CITISTAFF
SOLUTIONS INC.
CASE NO.: 22NWCV00691
HEARING: 06/03/25
Petitioner/Plaintiff ALBA MELENDEZ-RODRIGUEZ’s Motion to
Vacate Arbitration Award is GRANTED.
Respondent/Defendant CAMINO REAL FOODS, INC.’s Petition to
Confirm Arbitration Award is ADVANCED from Wednesday, August 6, 2025 to
today’s date and VACATED.
Petitioner/Plaintiff to give notice.
BACKGROUND
This wrongful termination action was filed by
Petitioner/Plaintiff ALBA MELENDEZ-RODRIGUEZ (“Petitioner” or “Plaintiff”) against
Defendants CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS, INC. (“Citistaff”); CAMINO REAL FOODS, INC. (“Respondent”
or “CRF”); JOHN DOE; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive on August 10, 2022.
The operative Complaint alleges the following facts: “On or
about April 28, 2021, Defendants hired Plaintiff… as a Kitchen Cleaner. As a
full-time employee, Plaintiff performed all her job duties satisfactorily until
she was wrongfully terminated on or about May 16, 2021.” (Complaint ¶14.)
“Almost immediately after Plaintiff’s employment with CRF commenced, a practice
of harassment and discrimination ensued upon Plaintiff on the basis of her
gender. [¶] Plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment by her direct
supervisor at CRF, Defendant JOHN DOE. [¶] Defendant JOHN DOE aggressively and
inappropriately touched and groped Plaintiff every day at work, despite
Plaintiff asking him to stop. (Id. ¶¶18-20.) “On or around May 15, 2021, the
sexual harassment escalated when Plaintiff was subjected to a violent sexual
assault. Plaintiff was cleaning when JOHN DOE ordered her to inspect the
bathroom of a back office with a key code. Plaintiff went to the bathroom to
determine if it had been cleaned and stocked with supplies. JOHN DOE followed
her into the bathroom and immediately began to grope Plaintiff’s breasts and
buttocks. Plaintiff protested and told JOHN DOE to stop, but JOHN DOE ignored
her and forcefully began to kiss her neck. When Plaintiff tried to get away,
JOHN DOE pulled down Plaintiff’s pants and violently began to rape her and
continued to assault her against her will. Immediately after the assault, JOHN
DOE left the room and told Plaintiff to wait a few minutes before she left.
Scared and shocked, Plaintiff cried before leaving the room.” (Id. ¶24.) “That
same day, one hour later…. JOHN DOE asked her if she wanted to have sex.
Immediately, Plaintiff said no and tried to leave the office, but JOHN DOE
forced himself upon her again and raped her. After the assault JOHN DOE left
the office.” (Id. ¶26.) Plaintiff allegedly reported the assault to Citistaff
Human Resources, and was given a new job assignment, which was much further
away from her previous assignment. (Id. ¶29.) Thereafter, “Plaintiff… asked if
it would be possible to be placed at a new assignment because the assignment
she reported to that morning was very far away and it was exceedingly
inconvenient for her to get to as a result of her limited transportation
options. CITISTAFF promised Plaintiff that they would also find Plaintiff a new
job position and contact her with the reassignment information…. [¶] CITISTAFF
told Plaintiff not to return to the job location they had assigned her that
morning and instead instructed her to wait for them to contact her with her new
assignment.” (Id. ¶¶30-31.) “Because CITISTAFF instructed Plaintiff to wait for
CITISTAFF to contact her regarding her new assignment, but never in fact
contacted her, or provided any instruction as to how she could perform work for
which CITISTAFF would compensate her, Plaintiff was discharged by CITISTAFF on
or around May 16, 2021. Moreover, Plaintiff was constructively discharged, not
only because CITISTAFF failed to get back to her, but also because, before that
point, CITISTAFF reassigned her to a role that no reasonable person in her
shoes would accept in that it would require extremely long commutes.” (Id.
¶37.)
The Complaint asserts the following causes of action:
(1) Battery;
(2) Sexual
Battery;
(3) Assault;
(4) Sexual
Harassment in Violation of FEHA;
(5) Violation
of the Ralph Civil Rights Act;
(6) Violation
of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act;
(7) Hostile
Work Environment;
(8) Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress;
(9) Negligent
Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee;
(10) Discrimination
on the Basis of Gender;
(11) Failure
to Take all Reasonable Steps to Prevent Harassment in Violation of FEHA;
(12) Failure
to Investigate in Violation of FEHA;
(13) Retaliation
in Violation of FEHA;
(14) Wrongful
Constructive Discharge of Employment in Violation of Public Policy;
(15) Wrongful
Termination in Violation of Public Policy;
(16) Whistleblower
Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §1102.5;
(17) Whistleblower
Retaliation in Violation of Lab. Code §6310; and
(18) Constructive
Termination in Violation of Public Policy
On January 10, 2023, Judge Lee W. Tsao Granted Defendants
CitiStaff and CRF’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. This case was thereafter
stayed pending conclusion of arbitration.
On November 13, 2024,
the Arbitrator, Judge Craik S. Kamansky issued the following Award
(entitled “Non-Award Ruling After Summary Judgment Granting”): “As the granting
of summary judgment is dispositive as to [Camino Real Foods, Inc.], [Petitioner
Melendez-Rodriguez] is awarded nothing as to [Camino Real Foods, Inc.]… Camino
Real Foods, Inc., is entitled to recover costs on submission of a cost bill.”
(See Petition, Ex. 8(c).)
On April 15, 2025, Judge Margaret Miller Bernal granted
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s January 10, 2023 Order
granting Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration Due to a Change of Law. The
stay of this action was lifted, and the case was returned to civil docket.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner now moves to vacate the arbitration award on the
following grounds: (1) the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority, and the
award cannot be fairly corrected; and (2) the arbitrator unfairly refused to
postpone the hearing or hear evidence useful to settle the dispute.
In Opposition, Respondent CRF argues that the Motion should
be denied for the following reasons: (1) Petitioner fails to show that her
rights were substantially prejudiced by the misconduct of a neutral arbitrator
as required for vacatur under CCP §1286.2(3); Petitioner fails to show that the
Arbitrator exceeded his authority, as required for vacatur under CCP
§1286.2(4); and (3) in the absence of any valid basis for vacatur, confirmation
of the Award is mandatory under CCP §1286 and entry of judgment is authorized
under CCP §1287.4.
Respondent’s Objection to Petitioner’s Reply Brief is SUSTAINED.
CCP §1290, et seq. does not authorize the filing or consideration of Reply
papers. Petitioner’s Reply brief and the Request for Judicial Notice filed in
conjunction thereto, were not considered by this Court.
A court, upon petition by a party to an arbitration, may
only confirm, correct, or vacate an award. (CCP §§1285 and 1286; Jones v.
Kvistad (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 836, 840.) A court shall confirm the award
when the Petition or Response is duly served and filed unless it corrects the
award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award, or dismisses the
proceeding. (CCP §1286.)
A petition to vacate or correct an award is to be served and
filed no later than 100 days after service of the signed copy of the award.
(CCP §§1288; 1288.2.) A response to a petition to confirm, vacate, or correct
shall be filed and served within 10 days after the petition unless extended by
written agreement between the parties or by order of the court based upon good
cause. (CCP §1290.6.)
Procedurally, it appears that the Arbitrator’s “Non-Award
Ruling After Summary Judgment Granting” was electronically served on November
11, 2024. 100 days from the service date is February 19, 2025. The Subject
Petition was filed on December 18, 2024. An Amended Petition was filed on
December 19, 2024. The Petition(s) are timely. The response/Opposition to the
Petition was also timely filed on December 30, 2024.
The Court may review binding arbitration awards in
accordance with the statutory grounds for vacating or correcting. (See Moshonov
v. Walsh (2001) 22 Cal.4th 771, 775.) An arbitration award may be vacated
if the Court finds: “(4) The arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award
cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the
controversy submitted. (5) The rights of the party were substantially
prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon
sufficient cause being shown therefor or by the refusal of the arbitrators to
hear evidence material to the controversy or by other conduct of the
arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title.” (CCP §1281.6.2(4) and
(5).)
An arbitrator can exceed his powers by deciding an issue
that was not submitted to arbitration, arbitrarily remaking the contract, or
issuing an award that contravenes a well-defined public policy. (Gravillis,
Jr .v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th
503, 514.)
Here, Petitioner argues that the Arbitrator exceeded his
powers under section 1281.2(a)(4) by issuing an award contrary to the EFAA and
the decision issued by the Court of Appeal on January 29, 2024 in Kader v.
Southern California Medical Center, Inc. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 214, which
holds that “the date that a dispute has arisen for purposes of the Act is a
fact-specific inquiry in each case, but a dispute does not arise solely from
the alleged sexual conduct. A dispute arises when one party asserts a right,
claim, or demand, and the other side expresses disagreement or takes an
adversarial posture. In other words, [a] dispute cannot arise until both sides
have expressed their disagreement, either through words or actions. Until there
is a conflict or disagreement, there is nothing to resolve in litigation.” (Id.)
As stated above, on April 15, 2025, Judge Bernal granted
Plaintiff/Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of Defendants’ Motion to
Compel Arbitration. Judge Bernal expressly ruled that this “dispute arose after
the enactment of the [Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual
Harassment Act (“EFAA”)] on March 3, 2022. Because the EFAA applies, Defendants
should have been barred from compelling arbitration…. [¶] [T]he applicability
of the EFAA bars arbitration of the entire case, not merely to the sexual
assault or sexual harassment claims alleged as a part of the case. [Citations
Omitted.]” (04/15/25 Order)
The Motion to Reconsider Defendants’ Motion to Compel
Arbitration was granted by Judge Bernal on April 15, 2025, and Judge Bernal
expressly ruled that “Defendants should have been barred from compelling
arbitration.” (04/15/25 Order). This action should not have been submitted to
arbitration.
Moreover, issuing or confirming the arbitration award would
be in direct contravention with the EFAA, which bars arbitration of the entire
case. (See Doe v. Second Street Corp. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 552,
577.)
The Motion to Vacate the Arbitration Award is GRANTED.
This action is returned to the Court’s civil docket. The Court notes
that a Notice of Reassignment was filed in this case on April 30, 2025 which
states that effective June 2, 2025, this action was reassigned to Judge Brian
F. Gasdia as an individual, direct calendaring judge for all purposes,
including trial, in Dept R.
All parties are ORDERED to appear for the Case Management
Conference scheduled for September 15, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. R.
Respondent/Defendant CAMINO REAL FOODS, INC.’s Petition to
Confirm Arbitration Award is ADVANCED from Wednesday, August 6, 2025 to
today’s date and VACATED.