Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: "30-22-01243992Sharmavs.Lowe’sHomeCenters,LLC", Date: 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling

The Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by moving parties Defendants Lowes Home Centers LLC,  Lowe’s HIW, Inc., Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Claudia Arevalo, Nick Crooks (here “MPs”) is GRANTED; the balance of the action is STAYED pending completion of the arbitration.

MPs have demonstrated that a written agreement to arbitrate this controversy exists and have provided a copy of the relevant agreement (the “Agreement”).  (Morales Decl., Ex. B.) That Agreement clearly provides for arbitration of these employment-related disputes, as to all of the MPs.

Plaintiff argues – without presenting any evidence to support the assertion - that the Agreement is not valid, as he did not knowingly consent to arbitrate. But reasonable diligence requires the reading of a contract before signing it: a party cannot use his own lack of diligence to avoid an arbitration agreement.  (Brookwood v. Bank of America (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1667, 1674; Bolanos v. Khalatian (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1586, 1590 [“When a person with the capacity of reading and understanding an instrument signs it, he may not, in the absence of fraud, coercion or excusable neglect, avoid its terms on the ground he failed to read it before signing it.”].)

Neither Romo v. Y-3 Holdings, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1153 nor Renteria v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America (9th Cir. 1997) 113 F.3d 1104 would compel a contrary result here, even if evidence to support the assertion had been presented. In Romo, the plaintiff had not signed the separate arbitration agreement in an Employee Handbook. (Romo, supra, at 1160.)  Here, the Agreement at issue was a separate document that Plaintiff admittedly signed.  (Opp p. 2.) In Renteria, the agreement at issue did not even refer to employment disputes. (Renteria, supra at 1107.) Here, the Agreement expressly applies to employment claims, including claims under FEHA. (Morales Decl., Ex. B.)

Nor is the Agreement unenforceable because only Plaintiff signed it. (See Cruise v. Kroger Co. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 390, 397-398 [employer’s intent to be bound sufficiently shown by terms therein], and Serafin v. Balco Properties Ltd., LLC (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 165, 176 [“writing memorializing an arbitration agreement need not be signed by both parties in order to be upheld as a binding arbitration agreement.”].)

Plaintiff also argues unconscionability. But a contract must be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable to be unenforceable. (Gatton v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 571, 579.)  Here, neither is adequately shown.  Plaintiff does not dispute that the Agreement as presented offered employees an option to opt out - which he did not exercise. (Morales Decl., Ex. B.) Nor does it require him to bear any arbitration costs beyond a $150 filing fee which could be waived upon a showing of financial hardship. (ROA 22 Ex. B.)  And the Agreement requires arbitration in a forum which provides for reasonable discovery. (See ROA 21, Exs. G, H and Roman v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1476 [no meaningful difference between the scope of discovery approved in Armendariz and that authorized by the AAA employment dispute rules].) Unlike Ontiveros v. DHL Express (USA), Inc. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 494, 513, Plaintiff has not shown why the discovery available in the arbitral forum would not suffice here.

Finally, although Plaintiff has requested an evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff has failed to show that a dispute as to the existence or enforceability of the Agreement depends on conflicting factual assertions. That request is therefore denied.

The Motion is thus granted, with this action stayed pending completion of the arbitration, in accordance with C.C.P. § 1281.4.  Counsel for MPs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.