Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 24STCV22299, Date: 2025-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV22299    Hearing Date: May 7, 2025    Dept: 11

Overton (24STCV22299)

Tentative Ruling Re: Motion to Compel Arbitration

Date:                           5/7/25

Time:                          11:00 am

Moving Party:           CCS Facility Services – Los Angeles, Inc. (“CCS” or “Defendant”)

Opposing Party:        Yadira Garcia Rocha (“Plaintiff”)

Department:              11

Judge:                         David S. Cunningham III

________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING

The hearing on Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is continued for supplemental briefing.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff used to work for CCS.  She alleges that CCS subjected her and other current and former non-exempt employees to numerous wage-and-hour violations.

Here, CCS moves to compel arbitration.

DISCUSSION

Collateral Estoppel

In reply, Defendant brings up the doctrine of collateral estoppel.[1]  Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s case is duplicative of a case pending in Fresno County.  Defendant contends the doctrine applies because the Fresno judge granted a similar motion to compel arbitration.  (See Reply, pp. 1, 2-3.)

The cases do appear to be the same.  Plaintiff’s counsel filed both actions just days apart.  The named Defendants are identical; the alleged classes are identical; and they allege the same nine causes of action.  (See Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. 1, ¶¶ 1, 9, 26, 33-93 [attaching the Fresno operative complaint]; see also Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 11, 28, 35-95.)

The arbitration agreements and the motions to compel also appear to be similar or the same.  (See Defendant’s RJN, Exs. 2, 3, 4 [attaching the Fresno arbitration agreement, moving brief, and opposition]; see also Kiefer Decl., Ex. A; Motion, pp. 1-14; Opposition, pp. 5-17.)

Given these facts, the Court believes the hearing should be continued.  The Court is concerned about forum shopping, wasting judicial resources, and the potential for inconsistent rulings.  Why did Plaintiff’s counsel fail to disclose the Fresno case to the Court?  Has either side moved to coordinate the actions?  If not, why not?  Does collateral estoppel apply?  Should Plaintiff’s case be stayed until the Fresno appeal is resolved?  Supplemental briefing is needed to answer these questions.

Existence, Assent, and the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)

Notably, Plaintiff does not dispute that an agreement to arbitrate exists, that she e-signed the agreement, and that the FAA governs.

Unconscionability and Enforcement

For now, the Court declines to rule on Plaintiff’s unconscionability challenges.

 *************************       

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES

               The Court has considered the
arguments presented in connection with the motion to compel arbitration of Defendant
CCS Facility Services - Los Angeles, Inc. (“CCS” or “Defendant”).

               IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is continued for supplemental
briefing.

The Court's reasoning for the continuance is as
follows:

I.                  
BACKGROUND

              Plaintiff
used to work for CCS. She alleges that CCS subjected her and other current and
former non-exempt employees to numerous wage-and-hour violations.  Defendant CCS moves to compel arbitration.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.

II.               
DISCUSSION

A.   
Collateral
Estoppel

               In
reply, Defendant raises the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Defendant asserts
that Plaintiff’s case is duplicative of a case pending in Fresno County [1]and
contends the doctrine applies because the Fresno judge granted a similar motion
to compel arbitration.  (See Reply, pp.
1, 2-3.)

               The
cases do appear to be the same. Plaintiff’s counsel filed both actions just
days apart. The named Defendants are identical, the alleged classes are
identical, and they allege the same nine causes of action. The arbitration
agreements and the motions to compel appear similar or the same. (See
Defendant’s RJN, Ex. 1, ¶¶ 1, 9, 26, 33-93 [attaching Fresno operative
complaint]; see also Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 11, 28, 35-95.)
(See Defendant’s RJN, Exs. 2, 3, 4 [attaching the Fresno arbitration agreement,
moving brief, and opposition]; see also Kiefer Decl., Ex. A; Motion, pp. 1-14;
Opposition, pp. 5-17.)

               Given
these facts, the Court is concerned about forum shopping, wasting judicial
resources, and the potential for inconsistent rulings. The Court notes that
Plaintiff does not dispute that an agreement to arbitrate exists, that she
e-signed the agreement, and that the FAA governs.

B.    
Continuance
For Supplemental Briefing

               Supplemental
briefing is needed to address the following questions:

·        
Why did
Plaintiff’s counsel fail to disclose the Fresno case to the Court?

·        
Has either side
moved to coordinate the actions? If not, why not?

·        
Does collateral
estoppel apply?

·        
Should
Plaintiff’s case be stayed until the Fresno appeal is resolved?

               For
now, rulings on Plaintiff’s unconscionability challenges are deferred.

The continued hearing date is
_____________________________.

IT IS SO
ORDERED.

DATED:                                             ______________________________________________                                                                THE
HONORABLE DAVID S. CUNNINGHAM III