Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV28460, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28460    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: 68

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Background

On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant action against her employer, Defendant Chedraui USA, Inc. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

1.      Disability Discrimination

2.      Age Discrimination

3.      Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

4.      Failure to Prevent Discrimination

5.      Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation

6.      Failure to Engage in an Interactive Process

On December 5, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Plaintiff opposes.

Legal Standard on Motion to Compel Arbitration

California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in favor of arbitrability. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971-972.) The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, the party opposing the petition then bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to demonstrate that there should be no enforcement of the agreement, and the trial court sits as a trier of fact to reach a final determination on the issue. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.) The Court is empowered by Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 to compel parties to arbitrate disputes pursuant to an agreement to do so. 

Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.2 states that:

“The court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that:

(a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or

(b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement.

(c) A party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. For purposes of this section, a pending court action or special proceeding includes an action or proceeding initiated by the party refusing to arbitrate after the petition to compel arbitration has been filed, but on or before the date of the hearing on the petition. This subdivision shall not be applicable to an agreement to arbitrate disputes as to the professional negligence of a health care provider made pursuant to Section 1295.” (CCP § 1281.2.)

The party petitioning to compel arbitration under written arbitration agreement bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and party opposing petition must meet the same evidentiary burden to prove any facts necessary to its defense. The trial court acts as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence. (CCP § 1281.2; Provencio v. WMA Securities, Inc., 125 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1031.) 

Discussion

            Plaintiff does not claim that there was not mutual assent or that the arbitration was unconscionable. Plaintiff argues that the parties’ arbitration agreement should not be enforced because Plaintiff’s employment was conditioned upon signing the agreement.

            In her opposition, Plaintiff cites to Labor Code § 432.6, which states that

“A person shall not, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit, require any applicant for employment or any employee to waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with § 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) or this code, including the right to file and pursue a civil action or a complaint with, or otherwise notify, any state agency, other public prosecutor, law enforcement agency, or any court or other governmental entity of any alleged violation.” (Opposition at p. 2.)

            However, as Defendant argues in its reply, this section is not applicable to this case for a number of reasons, the main reason being that this section applies only to agrees entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2020 (Labor Code § 432.6(h)), and the parties entered into this arbitration agreement in 2014. (Reply at p. 1.) Therefore, their agreement is valid.

            Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The case is STAYED pending arbitration.