Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV06573, Date: 2024-12-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06573    Hearing Date: December 31, 2024    Dept: 74

Francisco-Andreas v. Avalon Cold Storage LLC et al.

Plaintiff Diego Francisco-Andreas’s Motion to Vacate Stay or Compel Arbitration

BACKGROUND 

            Plaintiff Diego Francisco-Andreas (Plaintiff) filed a complaint alleging his employers Avalon Cold Storage LLC, I-Staffing Inc., and Rami Rostami wrongfully terminated Plaintiff, and failed to properly compensate Plaintiff.

            Defendant I-Staffing Inc (I-Staffing) filed a motion to compel arbitration, which defendant Avalon Cold Storage LLC (Avalon) joined.

            On September 8, 2023, the Court granted the motion to compel arbitration as to I-Staffing and Avalon.  The Court ordered a stay pending binding arbitration to all parties.

            Since compelling arbitration, Avalon ceased operating and closed.

            Plaintiff now moves to either vacate the stay or compel defendant Rami Rostami (Rostami) to arbitration.

LEGAL STANDARD

Vacate Stay

            A trial court has limited discretion to lift a stay pending arbitration.  (MKJA, Inc et al. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 660.)  A trial court may lift the stay if the issue subject to arbitration is severable and lifting the stay would not frustrate the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.  (Id. at 160-161.)

Compel Arbitration

“A petition to compel arbitration or to stay proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and 1281.4 must state, in addition to other required allegations, the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration.  The provisions must be stated verbatim, or a copy must be physically or electronically attached to the petition and incorporated by reference.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330.)

DISCUSSION

Vacating Stay

            Plaintiff alleges that he has alter-ego and joint-employment claims against Rostami. Plaintiff contends that the arbitrator’s jurisdiction would not be frustrated by lifting the stay of proceedings in this Court because Rostami has refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings. The Court finds, however, that due to the intermingled nature of the claims, lifting the stay creates a meaningful possibility of inconsistent rulings in the two forums which would frustrate the arbitrator’s jurisdiction. The court also finds plaintiff’s argument involving possible duplicative discovery unpersuasive. Accordingly, the court denies the motion to lift the stay. 

Compelling Rostami to Participate in Arbitration

            Because the court’s authority to act is limited after a court orders a case to arbitration, the court declines to rule on plaintiff’s motion to compel Rostami to participate in the pending arbitration (which the arbitrator has already addressed). Moreover, and in any event, Plaintiff’s request does not meet the procedural requirements to compel arbitration because Plaintiff has not alleged the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration nor has Plaintiff stated the provision verbatim or attached a copy to the petition.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330.)

CONCLUSION

            The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the stay.

            The Court declines to rule on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

            Plaintiff to give notice.