Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 23SMCV03372, Date: 2024-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03372    Hearing Date: July 11, 2024    Dept: O

  Case Name:  Karissa Delaunay v. K & H Care, LLC, et al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDING

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant K & H Care, LLC and Joes Hernandez

RESP. PARTY:         No opposition filed

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendants K & H Care, LLC and Joes Hernandez’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. The action is stayed pursuant to CCP §1281.4 pending completion of arbitration.  Defendant presents an applicable arbitration agreement, the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration provision, and Plaintiff does not submit an opposition. The Court notes a motion to compel arbitration was granted in the related Case No. 23SMCV00817 (“Delaunay 1”) on 9-28-23.

            Defendants’ RJN is GRANTED.

I.                Defendant establishes the existence of an applicable arbitration agreement 

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that 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, unless it determines that: 

(a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for rescission 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.”  CCP §1281.2. 

“The trial court may resolve motions to compel arbitration in summary proceedings, in which the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court's discretion, to reach a final determination.  The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability by a preponderance of the evidence.”  (Mendoza v. Trans Valley Transport (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 748, 718 [trial court properly decided plaintiff’s challenge to arbitration agreement despite delegation clause where plaintiff attacked contract formation and very existence of agreement to arbitrate].)   

“Strong public policies favor enforcement of agreements to arbitrate disputes. A judge must order arbitration of any dispute that the judge determines is within the parties' arbitration agreement, unless the right to compel arbitration has been waived or the agreement is otherwise unenforceable.” ([§ 3.38] Determining Petition to Compel Arbitration:, Cal. Judges Benchbook Civ. Proc. Before Trial § 3.38.)

            Defendant submits a copy of the employment agreement between Defendant and Plaintiff. (Macdonald Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. A.) Defendant moves to compel arbitration pursuant to ¶ 10 on page six of the employment agreement which states:

ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES. Any controversy of claim arising out of or related to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, except for unlawful detainer actions or any dispute that arises from Employer’s actions to regain possession of the premises, or action brought for wages before the California Labor Commissioner or related to workers compensation, shall be settled in binding arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, which may be found at www.adr.org. The Employer will pay the costs for the arbitrator and hearing room. Any arbitration award rendered must be in writing, setting forth the reasons for the decision and may be entered as a judgment in any court of competent jurisdiction. Arbitration decisions/awards issued pursuant to this Agreement are final and binding.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, claims within the monetary limits of the small claims court shall be litigated in such court at the request of either party, so long as both disputes limit their right of recovery to the jurisdiction of the small claims court.

NOTE: By initialing in the space below, you are agreeing to have any dispute arising out of this Agreement decided by neutral arbitration as provided by law and you are giving up any rights you may possess to have the dispute litigated in a court or jury trial. The parties shall be allowed to conduct relevant discovery as is allowed under the California Code of Civil Procedure in arbitration matters and as further under the National Rules for Resolution of Employment Disputes.

If you refuse to submit to arbitration after agreeing to this provision, you may be compelled to arbitrate under the authority of applicable law. You agree that your agreement to this arbitration is voluntary.

(Macdonald Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. A.)

            The arbitration provision is signed by both Defendant and Plaintiff. (Macdonald Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6, Ex. A.) The arbitration provision is broad and applies to “[a]ny controversy of claim arising out of or related to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, except for unlawful detainer actions or any dispute that arises from Employer’s actions to regain possession of the premises, or action brought for wages before the California Labor Commissioner or related to workers compensation” (Id.)  The language of the arbitration clause is considered “very broad.” (See Larkin v. Williams, Woolley, Cogswell, Nakazawa & Russell (1999) 76 Cal.App.4^th 227, 230 (arbitration clause applicable to “any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to any provision” of partnership agreement was “very broad” and applied to plaintiff’s complaint for breach of partnership agreement, dissolution and accounting); Ramos v. Supr. Ct. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5^th 1042, 1052 (arbitration clauses using the phrase “arising out of or related to” are construed more broadly than arbitration clauses only using “arising from” or “arising out of an agreement”); Berman v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc.  (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 999, 1003 (arbitration agreement applying to “any controversy arising out of or relating to this contract” was “certainly broad enough to embrace tort as well as contractual liabilities so long as they have their roots in the relationship between the parties which was created by the contract”).   

            The broad arbitration clause applies to the Plaintiff’s FAC. Plaintiff alleges “Defendant failed to issue Aggrieved Employees wage agreement that fully and accurately itemized the requirements set forth in Labor Code Section 226(a) . . .” (FAC, ¶18.) The Arbitration Agreement addresses compensation due to the broad arbitration clause incorporating “any controversy or claim arising out of or related to” the Employment agreement which includes compensation. (See Matthews Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. D, ¶ 2.)

            Furthermore, the broad arbitration agreement applies to the Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claims in the FAC. To pursue a representative PAGA claim, Plaintiff must first establish a claim against her individually that she is the “aggrieved employee,” defined as “any person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.” (Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 81 [“Not every private citizen can serve as the state's representative. Only an aggrieved employee has PAGA standing.”].) Thus, the representative PAGA claim here is related to the individual PAGA claim sent to arbitration on 9-28-23 in the related case, No. 23SMCV00817.

            Defendant presents an applicable arbitration agreement and satisfies the initial burden as the party moving to compel arbitration.  The burden is therefore on Plaintiff to establish a defense to the arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence.   

Plaintiff did not submit an opposition, and thus does not meet their burden to prove any defense to enforcement.

            Thus, the motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The action is stayed pursuant to CCP §1281.4 pending completion of arbitration.