Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 23SMCV05417, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05417    Hearing Date: July 2, 2024    Dept: O

 Case Name:  Ochoa v. 90210 Surgical Medical Center, LLC, et al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants 90210 Surgical Medical Center LLC, Benita Tapia and Andrew Ball

RESP. PARTY:         No opposition filed.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendants 90210 Surgical Medical Center LLC, Benita Tapia and Andrew Balls’ Motion To Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.  The action is stated pending resolution of arbitration pursuant to CCP § 1281.4. Defendants identified the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition, and thus did not meet their burden to challenge the arbitration provision in the employment contract.

“The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. In these summary proceedings, 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.” (Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284.)   “The party opposing arbitration has the burden of demonstrating that an arbitration clause cannot be interpreted to require arbitration of the dispute.” (Rice v. Downs (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1223, citing Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686-87.)   “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…”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

“A party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence any fact necessary to its defense.” (Olvera v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 447, 453.) CCP §1281.2 only allows the Court to deny enforcement of an applicable arbitration agreement where the party resisting arbitration demonstrates (1) waiver; (2) grounds for rescission of the agreement; or (3) subsection (c) grounds involving third parties to the arbitration agreement and potential for inconsistent rulings of fact or law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

            Defendants 90210 Surgical Medical Center LLC, Benita Tapia and Andrew Balls (“Defendants”) move to compel arbitration based on the Arbitration Agreement, titled “Dispute Resolution Protocol (‘DRP’) and Mandatory Arbitration of Claims” within the employment contract entered into between Defendants and Plaintiff Susana Ochoa (“Ochoa”) on 8-9-21. (Thompson Decl., ¶¶ 10, 14-17, Ex. A ¶ 8, B.) The arbitration agreement states:

this DRP covers any dispute arising out of or relating to your co-employment with TriNet, including your TriNet co-employer, and/or arising out of or relating to your employment with your company, as well as any dispute with an employee, officer, or director of TriNet or of a TriNet customer (all of whom, in addition to TriNet customers, are intended to be beneficiaries of this DRP) (“covered dispute”), including, but not limited to, all claims whether arising in tort or contract and whether arising under statute or common law including, but not limited to, any claim of breach of contract, discrimination or harassment of any kind. The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) applies to this DRP.

(Id. at ¶¶ 10, 14-17, Ex. A, ¶ 8.)

            Defendants declare that Ochoa knowingly, voluntarily, and willingly signed the Arbitration Agreement, which was presented to her in a clear and legible manner, during her employment. (See id. at ¶¶ 9-10, 14-17, Ex. A.) Defendants provide evidence that Ochoa electronically entered into the arbitration agreement on 8-9-21. (See id., ¶¶ 14-17, Ex. B.) The Defendants declare that based on Chad Thompson’s “personal knowledge of the design and operation of the TriNet Platform, the contents of Exhibit B show that Plaintiff clicked the “Accept” button on August 9, 2021, agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions of the TCA and its DRP.” (Thompson Decl., ¶ 15.)

            Ochoa does not oppose the motion to compel arbitration and thus does not meet her burden to challenge the entered into agreement.

            Thus, the Court finds that the parties entered into a valid and binding arbitration agreement on 8-9-21. Defendants Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. The action is stayed pending resolution of arbitration pursuant to CCP §1281.4. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4 [“If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.”].)