Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV13950, Date: 2025-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV13950    Hearing Date: March 12, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On June 4, 2024, Plaintiff Mark Shomaf filed this action against Defendants Universal Protection Service, LP and Theodore Heinz, alleging wage violations, discrimination, and wrongful termination.

            On February 4, 2025, Defendants 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.)

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.)

            On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff signed a California Arbitration Agreement requiring “all claims or causes of action that the Employee may have against the Company, or the Company against the Employee” to be submitted to binding arbitration. (Bhangoo Decl., Ex. A.) This includes claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and wage/hour laws. (Ibid.) This also includes “any claim or cause of action that the Employee may have against the Company’s . . . employees . . . directors, officers, shareholders, or other agents.” (Ibid.)

            Thus, Defendants have proven the existence of an arbitration agreement covering the claims at issue. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition and thus presents no contrary evidence or defense against enforcement of the agreement.

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.