Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 24STCV12655, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Super Center Concepts, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Kenya Scurlock’s claims in this action is continued to Wednesday, November 20, 2024, at 8:30 AM. Plaintiff and Defendant are instructed to file simultaneous supplemental briefs regarding the application of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) to this matter by Friday, November 15, 2024, at 12:00 PM.

Defendant Super Center Concepts, Inc. (“Super Center”) (“Defendant”) moves for an order compelling arbitration of all claims asserted by Plaintiff Kenya Scurlock (“Scurlock”) (“Plaintiff”). (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; 9 U.S.C. §§1 et seq.; C.C.P. §§1281.2 et seq.)

Plaintiff’s 10/23/24 evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Enrique Montes (“Montes”) are overruled as to Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendant, asserting four causes of action: (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) age discrimination in violation of FEHA; and (4) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of FEHA in connection with Plaintiff’s employment by Defendant in the deli department located in store number 127. (See Complaint ¶8.)

Defendant filed the instant motion on August 16, 2024. Plaintiff filed her opposition on October 23, 2024. On October 29, 2024, Defendant filed its reply.

Neither party addresses the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) in their briefs. The Rules of Professional Conduct instructed that a lawyer shall not “fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel, or knowingly misquote to a tribunal the language of a book, statute, decision or other authority.” (RPC, Rule 3.3(a)(2), emphasis added.)

Here, Defendant argues that the FAA governs the Arbitration Agreement. (Motion, pg. 5.) Plaintiff’s opposition does not address the EFAA. Defendant’s reply also does not address the EFAA. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint raises FEHA sex/gender harassment and retaliation claims, which would implicate the EFAA.

Accordingly, the Court seeks simultaneous, supplemental briefs from counsel regarding the applicability of the EFAA to the instant matter.

Defendant’s motion is continued to Wednesday, November 20, 2024, at 8:30 AM. Plaintiff and Defendant are instructed to file simultaneous supplemental briefs regarding the application of the EFAA to this matter by Friday, November 15, 2024, at 12:00 PM.

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is continued to Wednesday, November 20, 2024, at 8:30 AM. Plaintiff and Defendant are instructed to file simultaneous supplemental briefs regarding the application of the EFAA to this matter by Friday, November 15, 2024, at 12:00 PM.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court