Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 22TRCV00416, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00416    Hearing Date: August 11, 2022    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                          Thursday, August 11, 2022 

Moving Party:                         Defendant Teledyne Defense Electronics, LLC

Responding Party:                  Plaintiff Esperanza Morelos

Motion to Compel Arbitration.

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

RULING 

            Defendant Teledyne Defense Electronics, LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted.

BACKGROUND 

Procedural

            On June 2, 2022, plaintiff Esperanza Morelos (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against defendant Teledyne Defense Electronics, LLC and Does 1 to 20 (hereinafter “defendant” as to Teledyne Defense Electronics, LLC) alleging six causes of action for : (1) Age Discrimination; (2) Disability Discrimination (3) Retaliation; (4) Failure to Accommodate; and (5) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, all of the aforementioned in violation of FEHA; and (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. (Compl., p. 1).

            On July 18, 2022, defendant filed this instant Motion to Compel Arbitration.

            This motion is unopposed.

            On July 18, 2022, Moving defendant submitted  Proof of Service to the Court along with the moving papers. Defendant effectuated service by overnight delivery, on Eduardo Martorell, Esq. and Jean-Paul Le Clercq, Esq. at Martorell Law APC, Playa District, 6100 Center Drive, Suite 1130, Los Angeles, CA 90045 pursuant CCP §1013(a). See also, Barefield v. Washington Mut. Bank, stating that service is complete at the time of deposit with an overnight carrier. (Id, 136 Cal. App. 4th 299, 302). Attorneys Martorell and Le Clercq are listed as the plaintiff’s attorneys of record, therefore, service is proper. (See CRC, Rule 1.21, “Whenever a document is required to be served on a party, the service must be made on the party's attorney if the party is represented).

Factual

            Plaintiff brings forth this Complaint as a former employee of defendant, allegedly terminated for unsatisfactory work after working for defendant for 48 years. (Compl. at ¶5). Specifically, plaintiff alleges that she was terminated without any kind of written discipline or warning regarding her performance. (Id). At the time of her termination, Plaintiff was aged 75 years old and alleges that she was terminated because of her age, disability, and in retaliation for requesting medical leave two times in 2020 and 2021. (Id. at ¶35-36).

LEGAL AUTHORITY 

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 provides, in relevant part: 

On petition of a party to an Arbitration Agreement alleging the existence of a written Agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such 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.) 

On a motion to compel arbitration, the moving party must prove by a preponderance of evidence the existence of the Arbitration Agreement and that the dispute is covered by the Agreement.  The burden then shifts to the resisting party to prove by a preponderance of evidence a ground for denial (e.g., fraud, unconscionability, etc.).  (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413-414; Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 758.) 

            “California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration and any doubts regarding the arbitrability of a dispute are resolved in favor of arbitration.”  (Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686.)  “This strong policy has resulted in the general rule that arbitration should be upheld unless it can be said with assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation covering the asserted dispute.”  (Ibid. [internal quotations omitted].)  

            This is in accord with the liberal federal policy favoring Arbitration Agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), which governs all Agreements to arbitrate in contracts “involving interstate commerce.”  (9 U.S.C. § 2, et seq.; Higgins v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1247.)  “Thus, under both the FAA and California law, ‘Arbitration Agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.’”  (Higgins v. Superior Court, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1247,  citing Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 98).

DISCUSSION 

a.       A Valid Arbitration Agreement Exists and

 Plaintiff’s Dispute is Covered by the Agreement

Defendant alleges that as of November 29, 2016, defendant and plaintiff agreed to

mandatory arbitration of every claim plaintiff alleges against defendant in her complaint. (Motion, to Compel Arbitration (MTCA), ¶2). In a motion to compel arbitration, the moving party must prove by a preponderance of evidence the existence of the Arbitration Agreement and that the dispute is covered by the Agreement per CCP § 1281.2 before the burden shift to plaintiff to demonstrate grounds for denial of the existence of an arbitration agreement.

            A petition to compel arbitration must allege both (1) a “written agreement to arbitrate” the controversy, and (2) that a party to that agreement “refuses to arbitrate” the controversy.  (CCP § 1281.2.)  This rule does not require the petitioner to authenticate the agreement or do anything more than allege its existence and attach a copy. (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218 219.) Once this is done, the burden shifts to the opposing party to demonstrate the falsity of the purported agreement. (Id.)         

            Here, the evidence defendant provides to prove the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement between defendant and plaintiff is in the Jurkovich Declaration, Exhibit A submitted to the court on July 18, 2022. Exhibit A is labeled as an “Arbitration Policy,” dated on December 1, 2016 with an apparent signature of plaintiff on November 29, 2016. (Jurkovich Decl., Exhibit A). Additionally, Plaintiff’s instant claims are encompassed under the Agreement therein in Exhibit A, Section 4 (Jurkovich Decl, Exhibit A, Section 4). Based on defendant’s demonstration of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, the court should proceed on the merits. Because defendant has provided evidence that a valid arbitration exists, the burden shifts to plaintiff to demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, a ground for denial. However, plaintiff has failed to submit an opposition or raise any grounds for denial of enforcement of the arbitration agreement. Therefore, defendant Teledyne Defense Electronics, LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted.