Judge Douglas W. Stern, Case Number: 22STCV33064, Date: 2023-06-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV33064, Date: 2023-06-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33064 Hearing Date: June 30, 2023 Dept: 68

Kristopher Rahendra vs. Hollywood Motor Cars, LLC, et al., Case No. 22STCV33064

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Parties – Defendants Hollywood Motor Cars, LLC, and Marcelo Campiani

Moving Party’s Position

Plaintiff Kristopher Rahendra filed his complaint on October 7, 2022. In Plaintiff’s complaint, he alleges several causes of action related to his employment and the termination of his employment at Defendant Hollywood Motor Cars. During his onboarding process for the sales consultant position with Hollywood Motor Cars, Plaintiff signed a binding arbitration agreement to arbitrate claims related to his employment. The agreement at issue reads, in part, as follows:

“By signing my name below. . .I agree to pursue any claims I might have against the Company that currently exist or that may arise in the future exclusively through binding arbitration; similarly, the Company agrees to pursue any claims it might have against me that currently exist or that may arise in the future exclusively through binding arbitration.

I understand that this agreement requires me to pursue all claims I bring against the Company (and any third-party beneficiaries) through binding arbitration, and requires that the Company submit any claims it has against me to binding arbitration. . . Our agreement to arbitrate includes any and all claims which arise out of the employment context or any other interaction/relationship we had, have or may have in the future. Those claims include, but are not limited to, any claim, dispute, and/or controversy that either party brings against the other (including, but not limited to, any claims of discrimination and harassment, whether they are based on the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19674, as amended, as well as all other applicable state or federal laws or regulars) . . .

EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGMENT: I acknowledge that the Company has presented me with the above referenced information and that no other promises have been presented to me. . .My signature below attests to the fact that I have been given an opportunity to read and consider this agreement, and that I have read, understand, and agree to be legally bound by all of the above terms. I agree that the company is binding itself into this agreement by presenting this agreement to me for signature.” (Motion at pp. 9-10; Ward Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. A, pp. 1, 3.)

Defendants filed the motion to compel arbitration based on this arbitration agreement. In their motion, Defendants argues that the arbitration agreement is enforceable and that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to the arbitration agreement. Defendants have requested a stay on the action until arbitration is complete.

No opposition has been filed as of April 11, 2023.

Analysis

Legal Standard

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. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.) The Court is empowered by CCP § 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. The trial court acts as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence. (CCP § 1281.2.)

Existence of an Agreement

Under California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a contract. (Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.) The party moving to compel arbitration must establish the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. (CCP § 1281.2.) In ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, the court must first determine whether the parties actually agreed to arbitrate the dispute, and general principles of California contract law help guide the court in making this determination. (Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 534, 541.)

Once petitioners allege that an arbitration agreement exists, the burden shifts to respondents to prove the falsity of the purported agreement, and no evidence or authentication is required to find the arbitration agreement exists. (See Condee v. Longwood Mgt. Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.)

“With respect to the moving party’s burden to provide evidence of the¿existence¿of an agreement to arbitrate, it is generally sufficient for that party to present a copy of the contract to the court. (See¿Condee v. Longwood Management Corp.¿(2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218); see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330 [“A petition to compel arbitration or to stay proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and 1281.4 must state, in addition to other required allegations, the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration. The provisions must be stated verbatim or a copy must be physically or electronically attached to the petition and incorporated by reference”].) Once such a document is presented to the court, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to compel, who may present any challenges to the enforcement of the agreement and evidence in support of those challenges. [Citation]” (Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC¿(2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1160.)

Defendants have met their initial burden of showing that an arbitration agreement exists with Plaintiff. (Motion at pp. 9-10; Ward Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. A, pp. 1, 3.) The arbitration agreement appears valid and was signed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the Motion to Compel Arbitration.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted and the action stayed pending arbitration.

ORDER

1. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiff Kristopher Rahendra is GRANTED.

2. This action is stayed pending arbitration.