Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV28421, Date: 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28421    Hearing Date: March 8, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Bruce’s Prime Ribs & Spirits, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges 14 causes of action arising out of an employment relationship.

On December 12, 2022, Moving Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration (the “Motion”) on the ground that during his employment with Moving Defendant, Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement (the “Arbitration Agreement”) that requires that the claims asserted in the Complaint be resolved in binding arbitration.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Moving Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. 

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

            Moving Defendant’s objections to the Declaration of Hector Valencia are OVERRULED.

DISCUSSION

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 (“Armendariz”).)  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.) 

Existence of an Agreement to Arbitrate

Moving Defendant provides evidence of the Arbitration Agreement, which was executed on December 29, 2018.  (Declaration of Jeannie Mayer-Curato (“Mayer-Curato Decl.”) ¶ 6, Exhibit F.)  The Arbitration Agreement provides, in part:

“1. Any and all claims or controversies arising out of Employee’s application or candidacy for employment, employment, or cessation of employment with the Company shall be resolved through final and binding arbitration using the ADR Services, Inc., Arbitration Rules.

…

8. The arbitration shall be held before a single arbitrator as agreed to by the Parties, who shall be an attorney at law and an experienced employment law arbitrator.  The arbitrator shall authorize discovery sufficient to adequately arbitrate the Parties’ claims as determined by the arbitrator, including access to essential documents and witnesses.  The Arbitrator shall have the power to award all legal relief available in a court of law, including any and all damages that may be available for any of the claims asserted.

…

11. If, for any reason, any provision of this Agreement is determined by an arbitrator or a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or otherwise invalid, all other provisions of this agreement shall remain in full force and effect, insofar as they are consistent with existing law.”

(Mayer-Curato Decl., Exhibit F.)

The Court finds that Moving Defendant has provided sufficient evidence of the Arbitration Agreement.  Plaintiff does not dispute the existence or applicability of the Arbitration Agreement, but instead argues that it is unenforceable due to procedural and substantive unconscionability.

Unconscionability

Unconscionability has both a procedural and a substantive element, with the former focusing on oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining power and the latter on overly harsh or one-sided results.  (Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 899, 910.)  Though both procedural and substantive unconscionability need to be shown, they need not be present to the same degree; the more substantively oppressive the contract term, the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required to come to the conclusion that the term is unenforceable, and vice versa.  (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114.)

1.     Substantive Unconscionability

Substantive unconscionability addresses the unfairness of the terms of the contract itself—whether the terms are unduly oppressive, overly harsh, so one-sided as to shock the conscience, or unreasonably favorable to the more powerful party.  (Grand Prospect Partners, L.P. v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1349.)  Factors to consider include: (1) the fairness of the terms; (2) the charge for the service rendered; (3) the standard in the industry; and (4) the ability to accurately predict the extent of future liability.  (Id.)

Plaintiff argues that the Arbitration Agreement is substantively unconscionable because it limits recovery by only allowing the arbitrator to award “all legal relief” available in a court of law.  Plaintiff argues that this provision limits his recovery by explicitly authorizing an arbitrator to award equitable remedies.  The Court disagrees that this provision renders the Arbitration Agreement substantively unconscionable, as it does not limit the arbitrator from issuing a particular type of remedy.  Based on the lack of substantive unconscionability, the Court need not analyze procedural unconscionability.

            In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion.  The Court sets a status conference on September 6, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in this department.  The parties are ordered to file a joint status report by August 30, 2023. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

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.

         Dated this 8th day of March 2023