Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 22STCV15499 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Aligned TeleHealth, LLC, Asana Integrated Medical Group (“Asana”), Theresa Miller, and Mona Karaguozian (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

On May 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) asserting 14 causes of action arising out of an employment relationship. On June 10, 2022, Moving Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings (the “Motion”) on the grounds that Plaintiff signed a written agreement with that contains a binding arbitration provision which requires that her current claims be adjudicated in arbitration.

The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is to move the parties in an arbitrable dispute out of court and into arbitration as quickly and easily as possible. (Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. (1983) 460 U.S. 1, 23.) The FAA is consistent with the federal policy to ensure the enforceability, according to their terms, of private agreements to arbitrate. (Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. (1995) 514 U.S. 52, 57.) A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract. (CCP § 1281.) California law, like federal law, favors enforcement of valid arbitration agreements. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 97.) 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 unless grounds exist not to compel arbitration. (CCP § 1281.2.)

In support of the Motion, Moving Defendants provide evidence of an employment contract (the “Employment Contract”) entered into between Plaintiff and Asana. (See Declaration of Theresa Miller (“Miller Decl.”), Exhibit A.) The Employment Contract contains a provision which provides for the resolution of claims through binding arbitration (the “Arbitration Agreement”). (Id.) The Arbitration Agreement provides in part: “Unless expressly otherwise provided herein or as required by applicable law, all disputes that relate to or arise from the employment relationship between Employee and Company shall be resolved through binding arbitration on the terms and conditions set forth in this Article V.” (Id. at p. 10.)

The Court finds that Moving Defendants have provided evidence of a binding Arbitration Agreement. As the Motion is unopposed, Plaintiff has not controverted the validity of the Arbitration Agreement. The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion and orders that this matter be stayed pending the resolution of arbitration. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The Court sets a status conference for Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in this department. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report by January 5, 2023.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court