Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 23STCV21694, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV21694 Hearing Date: January 11, 2024 Dept: 68
Arianna
M. Mejia vs. Call-the-Car, et al., 23STCV21694
Motion to Compel
Arbitration
Moving
Parties – Defendants Call-the-Car, Kelly Sanchez, Lester Rivera, and Robert
Pruitt
Moving Parties’ Position
Plaintiff Arianna M. Mejia
(Plaintiff) filed her complaint on September 8, 2023. In Plaintiff’s complaint,
she alleges several causes of action related to her employment with Defendant
Call-the-Car. Included in the New Hire Packet that Plaintiff filled out when
she was hired by Defendant was an agreement to arbitrate. Plaintiff signed the
Employee Acknowledgement and Agreement form via DocuSign when she began working
on March 15, 2022. The Agreement included a clause in which Plaintiff agreed to
utilize the binding arbitration process for employment disputes that is outlined
in the employee handbook. Plaintiff was given a copy of the handbook with her
New Hire Packet. (Tellez Decl., ¶¶ 15-16; Ex. C; Ex. D.)
Defendants filed their motion on December 22, 2023. Defendants filed the
motion to compel arbitration based on Plaintiff’s agreement to arbitrate. In their
motion, Defendants argue that the arbitration agreement is valid and 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.
Analysis
I.
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.)
A. 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. (Tellez Decl., ¶¶ 15-16; Ex. C; Ex. D.) The
arbitration agreement appears valid and was signed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has
not filed any opposition to the Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court grants
Defendants’ motion.
ORDER
1. Defendants’
Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.
2. This
action is stayed pending arbitration.
3. A
post Arbitration hearing shall be set by the Court on a date that is reasonably
anticipated to be AFTER the completion of the arbitration.