Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV29870, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV29870 Hearing Date: April 17, 2024 Dept: 74
Jose Reza v. Blu Jam
Café, et al.
Plaintiff’s Motion to
Appoint an Arbitrator
BACKGROUND
This action arises from an
employment dispute.
On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff
Jose Reza (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Blu Jam Café – DTLA
and Alfonso Santiago (Defendants). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges the
following causes of action: discrimination; harassment; retaliation; failure to
prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; declaratory judgment;
wrongful termination in violation of public policy; failure to pay wages;
failure to provide mean and rest periods; failure to provide wage and hour
statements; waiting time penalties; and unfair competition.
On August 30, 2023, the court
granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.
On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed
this motion to appoint an arbitrator.
DISCUSSION
The court does not have
jurisdiction to hear this motion. If an arbitration agreement provides a method
of appointing an arbitrator, that method must be followed. (Code Civ. Proc., §
1281.6.) Under the arbitration agreement in place, the parties agreed that any
legal dispute or controversy covered by the agreement must be resolved in
accordance with JAMS rules. (Raj Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A, ¶ 1.) Moreover, the JAMS
rules are incorporated into the agreement. (Raj Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A, ¶ 1.) Under
JAMS Rule 15, if the parties do not agree to an arbitrator, JAMS shall send the
parties a list of arbitrator candidates. The parties may then strike names from
the list and rank the remaining proposed arbitrators in order of preference.
JAMS will then appoint the arbitrator with the highest composite ranking. (Raj
Decl., ¶ 13; Ex. E, pp. 7-8.) The parties must follow this method.
CONCLUSION
The
court denies Plaintiff’s motion to appoint an arbitrator.
Plaintiff shall give notice.