Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV25419, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25419    Hearing Date: January 22, 2025    Dept: 74

Isaacson v. Paradigm Treatment Centers, LLC et al.

Defendants Paradigm Treatment Centers, LLC and Altior Healthcare, LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from an employment and discrimination claim.

Plaintiff Arika Isaacson (Plaintiff) alleges the defendant Paradigm Treatment Centers LLC and Altior Healthcare (Defendants), her employers, discriminated against her for her sex.

Plaintiff filed the complaint on October 18, 2023. 

On April 25, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

            The Court denies the Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections.

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.)  The moving party must also establish the other party’s refusal to arbitrate the controversy.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) 

            The Court shall order arbitration unless it determines that grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.)  Under California law, and the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitration agreement may be invalid based upon grounds applicable to any contract, including unconscionability, fraud, duress, and public policy, which would be matters for the court to decide.  (Sanchez v. Western Pizza Enterprises, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 154, 165-166.)

DISCUSSION

            Defendants allege that the Parties entered into a binding arbitration agreement in May 2021.  The agreement states, in pertinent part:

Agreement to Arbitrate. Employee and Company (the “Parties”) hereby agree that any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or related to Employee’s employment with or termination from the Company, this Agreement, or any breach of this Agreement (whether grounded in common or statutory law) shall be resolved exclusively through binding arbitration in Los, Angeles, California before a single neutral arbitrator selected jointly by the Parities.  The Parties agree that all claims shall be submitted to arbitration including, but not limited to, claims based on any alleged violation of any constitution, federal, states, or local law; any claims of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or violation of civil rights; claims for wages or compensation owing; and any claim based in tort, contract, or equity. The Parties to the arbitration shall have available rights, remedies, and defenses as in a civil action for the issues in controversy.  Any arbitral award determination shall be final and binding upon the Parties.

(Doukakis Decl., Ex. “B.”)  Defendants attached a copy of the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims with no signature attached, a page stating, “Mutual Arbitration” with a signature labeled Anika Issacson, and a screenshot from Paylocity labeled “Mutual Arbitration” with a document linked stating “Mutual Arbitration Form” and “Please review the following policy and acknowledge in the space provided below.”  (Doukakis Decl., Ex. “B”; “C”; “D.”) 

            Defendants allege that Plaintiff was sent the forms to sign, Plaintiff confirms that she was required to log into an online portal to review and sign various documents.  (Doukakis Decl. ¶ 5; Isaacson ¶ 5.)  Given the evidence submitted by both parties, the Court finds that the signature was acknowledging the Arbitration Agreement.  Additionally, the Court finds the statement “[p]lease review the following policy and acknowledge in the space provided below” provided sufficient notice to the Plaintiff that they were signing the form.  (See Herzog v. Superior Court (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1280, 1296-99.) 

            Finally, Plaintiff notes that the contract lists “Paradigm Treatment, LLC” rather than “Paradigm Treatment Centers, LLC” as the beneficiary of the arbitration agreement.  In interpreting a contract, the mutual intention of the parties at the time of formation governs interpretation.  (Travelers Cas. and Surety Co. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 949, 955.)  Plaintiff intended to form a contract with Paradigm Treatment Centers, LLC and Paradigm Treatment Centers, LLC intended to form a contract with Plaintiff.  In light of the submitted exhibits, the Court finds that Defendants have met their burden in establishing an Arbitration Agreement existed between the two parties.

Waiver

            Plaintiff argues that Defendants waived their right to compel arbitration by participating in litigation for over six months after the action was filed. Plaintiff filed the complaint on October 18, 2023.  (Zenjiryan Decl. ¶ 3.)  Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint and filed a cross-complaint.  (Zenjiryan Decl. ¶ 3.)  Defendants also responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.  (Zenjiryan Decl. ¶ 4.) The six-month span between the filing of the complaint and defendants’ filing their motion to compel arbitration during which defendants’ litigation activity was limited to the precautionary acts of filing its cross-complaint and responding to discovery – but not affirmatively propounding any discovery requests – is not inconsistent with intending to arbitrate. Thus, the court finds Defendants have not waived their right to compel arbitration.  

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration.

            Defendants to give notice.