Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV15038, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15038    Hearing Date: November 6, 2024    Dept: 74

Roldan v. Cordova Construction Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Fredy Roldan’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.

BACKGROUND 

             Plaintiff Fredy Roldan (Plaintiff) filed a complaint for disability discrimination and violations of wage and hour laws against defendants Cordova Construction Services, Inc. (Cordova), Barrett Business Services Inc (Barrett), and Does 1-10.

            Plaintiff filed this motion to compel arbitration on February 08, 2024.

            Defendants Cordova Construction Services, Inc., Jennifer Cordova, Oscar Cordova and DecisionHR I, Inc. (collectively Defendants.)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION

Defendant Cordova Construction Services Inc.’s Objection to Fedy Roldan’s Declaration

-          Sustained: 1 (translation not certified)

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.) This is usually done by presenting a copy of the signed, written agreement to the court. “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

            The Court sustained Defendants evidentiary objection to the Declaration of Fredy Roldan for lack of certified translation. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not authenticated the exhibits attached to the declaration and thus Plaintiff does not provide an authenticated copy of the arbitration agreement.

Plaintiff may include a verbatim statement of the agreement to satisfy the California Rules of Court, but here Plaintiff submits quotations from the claimed arbitration agreement that include several ellipses, indicating missing portions of the agreement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330.) Moreover, that part of the agreement that Plaintiff does quote does not include the minimum necessary terms under Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, such as the allowance of judicial review, the types of relief available, and who pays for arbitration costs.  (24 Cal.4th 83, 113-118.) Given the foregoing, Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement.

CONCLUSION

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.

Plaintiff shall give notice.