Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV03116, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03116    Hearing Date: April 24, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On February 10, 2023, Plaintiff Jose Trujillo filed this employment action against Defendant Current Air Clothing, Inc. The complaint asserts claims for wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation, and failure to pay wages.

            On March 24, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists….” (Code Civ. Proc, § 1281.2.) “The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability.” (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) states that “[a] written provision in any . . . contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” (9 U.S.C. § 2.) The term “involving commerce” is interpreted to mean simply “affecting commerce” to give the FAA the broadest reach possible, and does not require a transaction that is actually “within the flow of interstate commerce.” (See Allied-Bruce Terminix Co. v. Dobson (1995) 513 U.S. 265, 273-74; Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc. (2003) 539 U.S. 52, 56.) Moreover, parties may agree to apply the FAA notwithstanding any effect on interstate commerce. (Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 355.)

DISCUSSION

“The moving party ‘can meet its initial burden by attaching to the motion or petition a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the opposing party's signature.’” (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165, quoting Bannister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 541, 543-44.)

On July 20, 2021, Plaintiff signed an acknowledgment confirming that he knowingly and voluntarily agreed to submit any dispute arising from or relating to his employment to binding arbitration. (Chu Decl., Ex. B.) The acknowledgment further states that Plaintiff understood the agreement to mean he waived his right to a jury trial. (Ibid.) Plaintiff does not oppose the motion and therefore submits that the agreement is valid and covers the claims at issue.

The Court finds that Defendant has satisfied its burden of proving an agreement to arbitrate. Plaintiff has not offered any defense against enforcement of the contract. Therefore, the claims are subject to arbitration.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The Court hereby stays the case in its entirety.