Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV14811, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

 



 




Case Number: 23STCV14811    Hearing Date: July 31, 2024    Dept: 74

Leo Huezo v. Quixote Studios, LLC, et al.

 

Defendant Quixote Studios, LLC ’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Defendants Sunset Quixote Holdings LLC, Hudson Properties L.P., Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc., and John Vargas’ Joinder.

 

BACKGROUND¿ 

 

This action arises from an employment dispute. 

 

On June 26, 2023, Plaintiff Leo Huezo (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Quixote Studios, LLC, Sunset Quixote Holdings LLC, Hudson Properties L.P., Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc., John Vargas, and Jennifer Mullen.

 

On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint (FAC) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) discrimination on the basis of race; (2) discrimination on the basis of color; (3) harassment; (4) failure to prevent discrimination; (5) defamation; (6) wrongful termination; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) negligent hiring, retention and supervision; and (9) unfair business practices.

 

On December 11, 2023, Defendant Quixote Studios LLC filed this motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings.

 

On December 12, 2023, Defendants Sunset Quixote Holdings LLC, Hudson Properties L.P., Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc., and John Vargas filed a Joinder.

 

No opposition has been filed.

 

 

LEGAL STANDARD 

¿¿             

Under both the Federal Arbitration Act and California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a contract. (Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.) The party moving to compel arbitration must establish the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) In ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, the court must first determine whether the parties actually agreed to arbitrate the dispute, and general principles of California contract law help guide the court in making this determination. (Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 534, 541.) 

 

Once petitioners allege that an arbitration agreement exists, the burden shifts to respondents to prove the falsity of the purported agreement, and no evidence or authentication is required to find the arbitration agreement exists. (See Condee v. Longwood Mgt. Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.) However, if the existence of the agreement is challenged, "petitioner bears the burden of proving [the arbitration agreement's] existence by a preponderance of the evidence." (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413. See also Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1058-1060.)   

 

 

DISCUSSION¿  

 

Defendant moves to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings in this matter.

           

I.                   Existence of Arbitration Agreement

 

“With respect to the moving party's burden to provide evidence of the¿existence¿of an agreement to arbitrate, it is generally sufficient for that party to present a copy of the contract to the court. (See¿Condee v. Longwood Management Corp.¿(2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 597 (Condee¿); see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330 [“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”].) Once such a document is presented to the court, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to compel, who may present any challenges to the enforcement of the agreement and evidence in support of those challenges. [Citation]” (Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC¿(2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1160.) 

Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiff began his employment with Quixote on or about January 10, 2012. (Nye Decl., ¶ 3.) On June 14, 2019, as a condition of his continued employment, Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement (the “Agreement”). (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) The Agreement provides, in pertinent part, that: (1) it is a mutual agreement to arbitrate claims arising out of Plaintiff’s employment (to the extent permitted by law) between Quixote and Plaintiff. (Nye Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. A.)

As such, Defendant has shown that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists.

II.                Federal Arbitration Act

The¿FAA¿applies to contracts that involve interstate commerce (9 U.S.C. §§ 1,¿2), but since arbitration is a matter of contract, the¿FAA¿also applies if it is so stated in the agreement.¿(See¿Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC¿(2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 355 [260 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1]¿(“[T]he presence of interstate commerce is not the only manner under which the¿FAA¿may apply. … [T]he parties may also voluntarily elect to have the¿FAA¿govern enforcement of the Agreement”].)

Here, Plaintiff's Agreement expressly states it is governed by the FAA. (Nye Decl., Ex. A at Sect. 10.)

As such, the FAA applies to this matter. 

III.             Plaintiff’s Claims Are Encompassed by Arbitration Agreement

Once the Court concludes an arbitration agreement exists, it must then consider whether the agreement covers the claims at issue.  (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 966, 960.) 

Under the Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to final and binding arbitration of “any dispute arising out of or related to [Plaintiff’s] application or selection for employment, employment, and/or termination of employment with [Quixote].” (Nye Decl., Ex. A at Sect. 1.) The Agreement defines “any dispute” to include, in part, “disputes arising out of or relating to the application for employment, background checks, privacy, employment relationship, or the termination of that relationship (including post-employment defamation or retaliation), trade secrets, unfair competition, compensation, classification, minimum wage, expense reimbursement, overtime, breaks and rest periods, or retaliation, discrimination or harassment.” (Id.) Further, Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate claims against Quixote’s “affiliates, subsidiaries, or parent companies” and employees. (Id.) These are the claims that Plaintiff has made here – all stemming from alleged discrimination, harassment, defamation, and wrongful termination arising from his employment with Quixote. (See FAC.)            

Thus, the agreement encompasses Plaintiff’s claims. As a result, Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. Defendants’ joinder is also granted as Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate claims against Quixote’s “affiliates, subsidiaries, or parent companies” and employees. (Nye Decl., Ex. A at Sect. 1.)

Defendant seeks a stay of the proceedings. 

 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 provides that if arbitration “of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State” is ordered, the court in which the action or proceeding is pending “shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)   

 

Accordingly, Defendant’s request for a stay of the proceedings is GRANTED.  All proceedings are STAYED pending binding arbitration. 

 

 

CONCLUSION¿ 

 

Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. Defendants’ Joinder is GRANTED. The proceedings of this action are STAYED pending the outcome of the parties’ arbitration. 

 

Defendant shall give notice.