Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 24STCV15833, Date: 2025-02-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV15833    Hearing Date: February 18, 2025    Dept: 9

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Spring Street Courthouse, Department 9

Background

            This is a putative wage-and-hour class action and representative action.  Plaintiff Ana Ortiz -Gomez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she and the putative class members are and were employed by Defendants Beyond Resource Solutions, Inc. (“BRS”), Caplugs, Inc., and George Portillo (collectively “Defendants”) and that Defendant violated the Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders, and the Business and Professions Code.

On December 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant class action complaint.  In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages, (2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages, (3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, (4) Failure to Provide Rest Periods, (5) Waiting Time Penalties, (6) Wage Statement Violations, (7) Failure to Timely Pay Wages, (8) Failure to Indemnify, (9) Violation of Labor Code § 227.3, and (10) Unfair Competition.

            On December 3, 2024, Defendant BRS filed the instant motion to compel arbitration.  On December 3, 2024, Defendants Caplugs, Inc. and Jorge Mejia (erroneously sued as George Portillo) filed a notice of joinder to Defendant BRS’s motion to compel arbitration.  On January 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition.  On February 4, 2025, Defendant BRS filed a reply.  On February 4, 2025, Defendants Caplugs, Inc. and Jorge Mejia (erroneously sued as George Portillo) filed a notice of joinder to Defendant BRS’s reply in support of BRS’s motion to compel arbitration.  On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed an objection to Defendant BRS’s supplemental evidence submitted with the reply.

Plaintiff’s Objection to Reply Evidence

            Generally, for due process reasons, the moving party may not rely on additional evidence filed with its reply papers. (San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316.)  Evidence filed for the first time in a reply may violate the opposing party’s due process rights if considered by the Court.  (Ibid.)  Thus, evidence and exhibits presented in support of a reply are not generally allowed.  (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 249.)  However, it is reversible error for the Court to refuse to consider authenticating evidence in reply for a motion to compel arbitration when the opposing party puts the authentication of a signature at issue in the opposition.  (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1060.) 

            Here, in the moving papers, Defendant BRS asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to a Mutual Arbitration Agreement.  (Story Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A.)  In opposition, Plaintiff states that she does not recall seeing or signing the Mutual Arbitration Agreement.  (Huber Decl. ¶ 12.)  Pursuant to Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, a party opposing arbitration can challenge the authenticity of an arbitration agreement by “testify[ing] under oath or declar[ing] under penalty of perjury that the party never saw or does not remember seeing the agreement, or that the party never signed or does not remember signing the agreement.”  (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165.)  In reply, Defendant BRS has submitted evidence to authenticate the Mutual Arbitration Agreement.  (See Generally Supp. Story Decl.)  Because Plaintiff has challenged the authenticity of the Mutual Arbitration Agreement, it would be reversable error for the Court not to consider Defendant BRS’s reply evidence submitted to authenticate the Mutual Arbitration Agreement.  (Espejo, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p.1060.) 

However, to eliminate any prejudice to Plaintiff, the Court will afford Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to Defendant’s reply evidence.  (See Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1538 [“[I]f [reply evidence is] permitted, the other party should be given the opportunity to respond.”].)  At the outset of the February 18, 2025 hearing on Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, the Court will offer Plaintiff a continuance and an opportunity to file additional briefing and evidence in response to Defendant BRS’s reply evidence.  Plaintiff will have to elect at the outset of the February 18, 2025 hearing whether Plaintiff wishes to request a continuance in order to submit supplemental briefing and evidence or whether Plaintiff instead wishes to waive supplemental briefing in response to Defendants’ reply evidence and proceed on February 18, 2025.