Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV24150, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV24150    Hearing Date: February 26, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On September 18, 2024, Plaintiff Gbenga Owolabi filed this employment discrimination action against Defendants Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Anthony Arreola.

            On January 30, 2025, Defendants filed the instant motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff filed his opposition on February 11, 2025. Defendants filed their reply on February 19, 2025.

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.)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

            Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.

DISCUSSION

“As to the existence of an agreement, [the moving party bears] the ultimate burden of proof, but the court [is] obliged to resolve the dispute using a three-step burden-shifting process.” (Iyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 747, 755.)  

a. Defendants’ Initial Burden

“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.) “At this step, a movant need not ‘follow the normal procedures of document authentication’ and need only ‘allege the existence of an agreement and support the allegation.’” (Iyere, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 755.)

According to Defendant Cedars-Sinai’s Executive Director of Talent Management, Human Resources, Plaintiff executed a “Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims” in March 2002. (Hickey Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. A.) The agreement provides that “all claims or controversies in any way relating to or associated with your employment or the termination of employment” must be submitted to binding arbitration under the American Arbitration Association. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff argues that Mr. Hickey’s declaration is insufficient to authenticate the arbitration agreement. However, Defendant’s initial burden does not require evidentiary authentication of the document. (See Molecular Analytical Systems v. Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 696, 710 [“as a preliminary matter the court is only required to make a finding of the agreement's existence, not an evidentiary determination of its validity”].) Furthermore, “the custodian of a document need not have been present or employed when the document was created or signed to authenticate a document in a company's files.” (Iyere, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 758.) “[A]ny qualified witness knowledgeable about documents may lay foundation for business records.” (Id. at p. 759.) There is “no strict requirement as to how a party authenticates a writing.” (Ibid.) “A qualified witness need not be the custodian, the person who created the record, or one with personal knowledge in order for a business record to be admissible under the hearsay exception.” (Unifund CCR, LLC v. Dear (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 8.)

Mr. Hickey is a competent witness under these standards, and his declaration is sufficient to satisfy Defendants’ initial burden to demonstrate the existence of an arbitration agreement. Mr. Hickey is a director within the HR department familiar with Cedars-Sinai’s business and records practices who reviewed Plaintiff’s personnel file. (Hickey Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Mr. Hickey avers that the arbitration agreement was obtained from Plaintiff’s personnel file, which is maintained in the ordinary course of business. (Id., ¶¶ 3, 5.) Thus, Defendants have met their initial burden. 

b. Plaintiff’s Burden to Raise a Factual Dispute

“If the movant bears its initial burden, the burden shifts to the party opposing arbitration to identify a factual dispute as to the agreement's existence—in this instance, by disputing the authenticity of their signatures. To bear this burden, the arbitration opponent must offer admissible evidence creating a factual dispute as to the authenticity of their signatures. The opponent need not prove that his or her purported signature is not authentic, but must submit sufficient evidence to create a factual dispute and shift the burden back to the arbitration proponent, who retains the ultimate burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the authenticity of the signature.” (Iyere, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 755.)

Plaintiff did not submit a declaration in support of his opposition. Thus, Plaintiff does not deny signing an arbitration agreement, nor does he disclaim the signature on the agreement attached to Defendants’ motion. Instead, Plaintiff’s counsel submits a declaration attaching a page from Plaintiff’s personnel file obtained during discovery. (Koron Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) The document is a Job Description Acknowledgment Page containing Plaintiff’s signature from August 2014. (Id., Ex. 1.) Plaintiff argues, “To further bolster Mr. Hickey’s lack of foundation to authenticate the proffered arbitration agreement, Plaintiff’s signature on the proffered arbitration agreement (Exhibit A to Hickey Dec.) does not match Plaintiff’s signature on the Job Description form.” (Opp. 4:20-23.)

Plaintiff’s argument is not well-taken. The Job Description form has no bearing on Mr. Hickey’s foundation for authenticating the arbitration agreement. As discussed above, Mr. Hickey is a competent witness, and his declaration contains sufficient facts authenticating the arbitration agreement. The signature on the Job Description form, by itself, is insufficient to raise a factual dispute over the authenticity of the signature on the arbitration agreement. Again, Plaintiff does not deny that the signature on the arbitration agreement belongs to him.

c. Defendants’ Ultimate Burden

As discussed above, Mr. Hickey is a competent witness, and his declaration contains sufficient facts authenticating the arbitration agreement. Mr. Hickey’s supplemental declaration provides further facts demonstrating his knowledge of Cedar-Sinai’s document practices and personnel files. (See Hickey Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Mr. Hickey also provides additional information verifying that Plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement at issue. (Id., ¶¶ 4-12.) Thus, even assuming Plaintiff had raised a factual dispute over the authenticity of the agreement, Defendants have presented sufficient evidence to satisfy their ultimate burden.

In sum, the Court finds that the parties agreed to arbitrate the claims at issue. Therefore, the parties must submit the matter to arbitration.

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The case is stayed in its entirety pending the outcome of arbitration.