Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV10177, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10177    Hearing Date: May 24, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTIES:             Plaintiff LaFollette Marquis Henderson IV

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Comms. Retail, LLC

Motion to Compel Arbitration.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            This matter arises from an employment dispute. Plaintiff LaFollette Marquis Henderson IV (Plaintiff) filed his complaint on March 16, 2021, alleging multiple causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

            On August 1, 2022, Defendant Prime Comms. Retail, LLC (Defendant) filed a motion to compel arbitration.

            On December 16, 2022, there was a remote hearing on the motion to compel arbitration. The court granted the motion.

            That morning, Plaintiff’s counsel appeared via LACourt Connect and entered the digital waiting room. Due to a technical difficulty, though, Plaintiff’s counsel did not gain access to the hearing, meaning Plaintiff’s counsel could not contest the court’s tentative ruling.

            On April 4, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            In a motion to compel arbitration, the moving party must prove by a preponderance of evidence the existence of the arbitration agreement and that the dispute is covered by the agreement.  The burden then shifts to the resisting party to prove by a preponderance of evidence a ground for denial (e.g., fraud, unconscionability, etc.). (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413-414; Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 758.) 

            Generally, on a petition to compel arbitration, the court must grant the petition unless it finds either (1) no written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) the right to compel arbitration has been waived; (3) grounds exist for revocation of the agreement; or (4) litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219.) 

            “California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration and any doubts regarding the arbitrability of a dispute are resolved in favor of arbitration.” (Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686.) “This strong policy has resulted in the general rule that arbitration should be upheld unless it can be said with assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation covering the asserted dispute.” (Ibid. [internal quotations omitted].) This is in accord with the liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), which governs all agreements to arbitrate in contracts “involving interstate commerce.” (9 U.S.C. § 2, et seq.; Higgins v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1247.) 

DISCUSSION 

            The court tentatively granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in December 2022. However, the court will give Plaintiff the opportunity to orally argue its opposition.

CONCLUSION

                Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, subject to the outcome of the rehearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿May 24, 2023

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court