Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV16148, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV16148    Hearing Date: February 19, 2025    Dept: 74

Torres v. Glen Park at Valley Village et al.

Defendant Glen Park at Valley Village’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from a wrongful termination cause of action.

Plaintiff Juana Torres filed a complaint against her employers Glen Park at Valley Village; Samuel Hale, LLC; and South East Employee Leasing Services, Inc.

Defendant Glen Park at Valley Village (Defendant) moves to compel arbitration.

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 filing of a lawsuit against the moving party for a controversy clearly within the scope of the arbitration agreement affirmatively establishes the other party’s refusal to arbitrate the controversy.  (Hyundai Amco America, Inc. v. S3H, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 572, 577.) 

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

            Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to arbitration based on the Arbitration Agreement Plaintiff signed on April 11, 2018.  The Arbitration Agreement states in pertinent part:

[] I agree that any claim, dispute, and/or controversy that either I may have against my Employer, my Temporary Staffing Employer or SPLI… arising from, related to, or having any relationship or connection whatsoever with my seeking employment with, employment by, or any other association with my Worksite Employer…

(Holden Decl., Ex. 1.)  Plaintiff’s name and signature are visible on the last page.  (Holden Decl., Ex. 1.)  This evidence shows that Plaintiff agreed to submit for arbitration all claims within the terms of the arbitration provision. 

            Filing a lawsuit creates a presumptive unwillingness to arbitrate.  (Hyundai, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at pp. 577.)  Additionally, Plaintiff’s response indicating that she would only be willing to arbitrate with additional stipulations indicates an unwillingness to arbitrate under the current agreement.  Therefore, Defendant has met its burden in establishing that an arbitration agreement existed, and that Plaintiff has refused to arbitration.

            Plaintiff filed an opposition essentially requesting that the Court continue the motion and allow Plaintiff to file a late reply to dispute the arbitrability.  The Court finds that Plaintiff did not substantially oppose the motion.  Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.    

Stay

            Upon motion of a party, the Court may stay the action until the arbitration is had according to the order to arbitrate.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)  A civil action should be stayed where there is a threat of inconsistent results.  (Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 303, 320.)    

Plaintiff does not oppose the stay.  All defendants in the action are a party to the arbitration agreement, and all defendants are named under all causes of action.  Thus, there is a threat of inconsistent results. 

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Stay.

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay proceedings.

            Defendant to give notice.