Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV29780, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV29780    Hearing Date: November 20, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff Edward Casillas filed this employment discrimination action against Defendants Liberty Life National Insurance Company, Globe Life and Accident Insurance Company, Globe Life Liberty National Division, and The Green Agencies. Plaintiff has since passed away, and his mother (Terry Casillas) currently pursues the action as Plaintiff’s successor-in-interest.  

            On April 10, 2024, the Court granted Defendant Liberty Life National Insurance Company (LLN)’s motion to compel arbitration based on an Independent Agent Contract between Plaintiff and LLN.            

            On October 11, 2024, Green Financial LLC (erroneously sued as The Green Agencies) filed the instant motion to compel arbitration based on the same Independent Agent Contract. Plaintiff filed his opposition on November 6, 2024.

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.)

DISCUSSION

            As the Court has already granted LLN’s motion to compel arbitration, there is no dispute over the existence of the subject agreement. There is also no dispute that the arbitration provision covers the claims in the complaint. The issue on this motion is whether the agreement applies to Green Financial (GF), a non-signatory.  

            “Generally speaking, one must be a party to an arbitration agreement to be bound by it or invoke it.” (Pillar Project AG v. Payward Ventures, Inc. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 671, 675.) An exception to the general rule is when the non-signatory is an agent of a signatory. “[W]hen a plaintiff alleges a defendant acted as an agent of a party to an arbitration agreement, the defendant may enforce the agreement even though the defendant is not a party thereto.” (Thomas v. Westlake (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 605, 614.)

            Here, Plaintiff alleges that all defendants were his employers or joint employers. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff further alleges that “Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, employees, managing agents, supervisors, coconspirators, parent corporation, joint employers, alter egos, successors, and/or joint ventures of the other Defendants.” (Id., ¶ 12.) Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that “the individuality and separateness of defendants have ceased to exist,” and defendants “are, in reality, one and the same.” (Id., ¶ 17.)

            Plaintiff cites to Barsegian v. Kessler & Kessler (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 446 for the proposition that boilerplate allegations of agency and alter ego do not constitute judicial admissions that allow a non-signatory to enforce an arbitration agreement. However, in a later case, the Court of Appeal distinguished Barsegian in the following manner:

“Unlike the allegations in Barsegian, here the operative complaint alleged workplace violations against Real Time and Pexco as joint employers, referred to both employers collectively as ‘defendants’ without any distinction, and alleged identical claims and conduct regarding unlawful and improper acts. This was not merely boilerplate language. As the alleged joint employers, Pexco and Real Time were agents of each other in their dealings with Garcia. Accordingly, Pexco is entitled to compel arbitration of Garcia's claims against it under the arbitration clause in Garcia's contract with Real Time.”

(Garcia v. Pexco, LLC (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 782, 788.)

            Garcia is directly on point, because Plaintiff here also alleges that LLN and GF were his joint employers and refers to both as “defendants” without distinction. (See Compl. ¶¶ 8, 16-20.) Plaintiff alleges identical claims against both defendants and attributes identical wrongdoing to both as his joint employers. These are more than boilerplate allegations of agency or alter ego. Instead, throughout the complaint, Plaintiff substantively treats LLN and GF as the same entity and accuses them of the same misconduct.

There is no reason that Plaintiff should only be required to arbitrate his claims against LLN, when he treats LLN and GF as identical and accuses them of identical misconduct. “Having alleged all defendants acted as agents of one another, [Plaintiff] is bound by the legal consequences of his allegations.” (Thomas, supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 614.) “[I]t would be unfair to defendants to allow [Plaintiff] to invoke agency principles when it is to his advantage to do so, but to disavow those same principles when it is not.” (Id. at p. 615.) “He who takes the benefit must bear the burden.” (Civ. Code, § 3521.) Therefore, GF may enforce the arbitration agreement despite being a non-signatory.     

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Green Financial LLC’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.