Judge Carolyn M. Caietti, Case Number: 37-2023-00027636-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2023-00027636-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 11, 2024

04/12/2024 10:30:00 AM C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Wrongful Termination Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00027636-CU-WT-CTL RIVERA VS CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 01/19/2024

Defendants Charter Communications, LLC and Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

Defendant's request for judicial notice is granted and notice will be taken to the extent permitted. The requests concern other California trial court rulings, which the Court is not bound to follow. (Santa Ana Hospital Medical Center v. Belshe (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 819, 831 ['a written trial court ruling has no precedential value']; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 8.1115 (restricts citation of unpublished opinions in California courts).) The motion also cited to federal court rulings and decisions which the Court is also not required to follow. (Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Service, Inc. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 316, 320 [California courts 'are not bound by decisions of the lower federal courts, even on federal questions'].) The Court has not relied on any rulings that lack precedential value.

Plaintiff's objections to the Declaration of John Fries are overruled.

Plaintiff's objections to the Declaration of Paul Sherman are overruled.

The arbitration agreement at issue is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act.

Based on the evidence provided, including a copy of Defendants' Arbitration Agreement, Defendants proved the existence of an arbitration agreement and this dispute falls within the scope of the agreement. (C.C.P., § 1281.2; ROA 13 – Declaration of John Fries, at Ex. A-F.) Contrary to Plaintiff's argument, Defendants are not required to prove Plaintiff signed the agreement. Consent to an arbitration agreement can be express or implied in fact. (Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 420.) Plaintiff's testimony that he could not access the arbitration agreement is refuted by Defendants' evidence that Plaintiff opened the email 39 times between October 6, 2017 and November 5, 2017.

(Declaration of Daniel Vassey, at ¶¶ 4-6, Ex. A.) The burden then falls on Plaintiff to prove a ground for denial. Plaintiff argues the agreement is unenforceable because it is unconscionable. Under the FAA, generally applicable contract defenses (such as unconscionability) may invalidate an arbitration agreement if it does not interfere with fundamental attributes of arbitration. (Nickson v. Shemran, Inc. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 121, 130.) However here, Defendants raised in the moving papers that the parties delegated to the arbitrator the gateway issues of arbitrability. (See, B.D. v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 931, 956-57 (explaining parties to arbitration agreements are generally free to delegate to an arbitrator, Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3019173 50 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: RIVERA VS CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS LLC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00027636-CU-WT-CTL instead of a court, questions regarding the enforceability of their agreement).) As cited by Defendants, section B.3 states the parties mutual agree the following would be submitted to arbitration, 'all disputes related to the arbitrability of any claim or controversy.' (Fries Decl., at Ex. C, at § B.3.) In opposition, Plaintiff did not acknowledge this section or Defendants' delegation argument, impliedly conceding on its merits. The delegation clause is clear and unmistakable and the arbitrator has the authority to decide all disputes related to the arbitrability of any claim or controversy.

Instead, Plaintiff argues that the entire agreement is unconscionable. But as explained by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, Division One in Nickson, supra, a distinction must be made when a party claims the entire agreement is unconscionable versus whether the delegation clause is unconscionable.

In Nickson, the court concluded it was for the arbitrator, not a court, to determine whether the agreement was unconscionable since: (i) the arbitration agreement contained a delegation clause; (ii) the employee/plaintiff challenged the enforceability of the agreement as a whole and not the delegation clause in particular; and (iii) the delegation to the arbitrator to decide enforceability was clear and unmistakable. (Nickson, supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at p. 132-33, citing Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63.) Here, Plaintiff does not oppose that there is a delegation clause that is clear and unmistakable. Plaintiff's unconscionability challenge is to the agreement as a whole. He does not specifically identify or argue the delegation clause is unconscionable. Thus, like in Nickson, unconscionability is an issue for the arbitrator.

For these reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

Concluding Orders Plaintiff and Defendants Charter Communications, LLC and Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC are ordered to arbitration.

This action against Defendants Charter Communications, LLC and Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC is stayed during the pendency of arbitration. (C.C.P., § 1281.4.) The Case Management Conference remains on calendar to discuss the case as it relates to Defendant Luis Medina. The record does not reflect a proof of service of summons on Defendant Medina.

The Court sets a status conference on September 13, 2024, at 9:15 a.m. in Department 70 to discuss the status of arbitration.

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the minute order will be the Court's final ruling.

Defendants are ordered to serve notice of the Court's final ruling by April 16, 2024.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3019173 50