Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV10180, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants CLOSET WORLD, INC. (“Closet World”) and RANDY HOWARD (collectively, “Defendants”)

This case arises from an employment relationship. On April 23, 2024, Plaintiff Anthony Trahan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint asserting the following causes of action: (1) race/color discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) race/color harassment in violation of the FEHA; (3) unlawful retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination and/or retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (5) unlawful retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (6) violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 – failure to provide meal and rest breaks; and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

On June 12, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.

“California law reflects a strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a relatively quick and inexpensive method for resolving disputes. To further that policy, section 1281.2 requires a trial court to enforce a written arbitration agreement unless one of three limited exceptions applies. Those statutory exceptions arise where (1) a party waives the right to arbitration; (2) grounds exist for revoking the arbitration agreement; and (3) pending litigation with a third party creates the possibility of conflicting rulings on common factual or legal issues.” (Acquire II, Ltd. v. Colton Real Estate Group (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 959, 967; Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) Similarly, “under the FAA, the strong federal policy favoring arbitration agreements requires courts to resolve any doubts concerning arbitrability in favor of arbitration.” (Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 176 (internal quotations omitted).)

In deciding a petition to compel arbitration, trial courts must decide first whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties, and then determine the second gateway issue whether the claims are covered within the scope of the agreement. (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.) The opposing party has the burden to establish any defense to enforcement. (Gatton v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 571, 579 [“The petitioner, T–Mobile here, bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the opposing party, plaintiffs here, bears the burden of proving any fact necessary to its defense.”].)

Procedurally, a petition to compel arbitration or stay proceedings must state verbatim the provisions providing for arbitration, or must have a copy of them attached. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1330.)

“With respect to the moving party’s burden to provide evidence of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, it is generally sufficient for that party to present a copy of the contract to the court.” (Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1160.)

Here, Defendants have met the initial burden of showing that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. Defendants submitted the declaration of Eddie Mireles, Human Resource Coordinator and Recruiter at Closet World, who attested that on March 15, 2022, he met with Plaintiff and provided Plaintiff with onboarding documents. (Declaration of Eddie Mireles in Support of the Motion [“Mireles Decl.”], ¶ 5.) On said date, Plaintiff signed the Arbitration Agreement. (Id., ¶¶ 5-7; Exh. B.)

Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement applies to any dispute, past, present, or future, arising out of or related to Employee’s application and selection for employment, employment, or termination of employment with Closet World, Inc…

… This Agreement requires all such disputes to be resolved only by an arbitrator through final and binding arbitration and not by way of court or jury trial…

Because Defendants established the existence of a valid and binding arbitration agreement, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show why the Arbitration Agreement should not be enforced. Since the Motion is unopposed, it is undisputed that Plaintiff affirmatively consented to the Arbitration Agreement with Closet World or that the Arbitration Agreement covers the claims asserted in the Complaint. Accordingly, there is no dispute that the present action is subject to arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement.

Plaintiff’s cause of action against individual defendant Randy Howard is also subject to arbitration since it is intertwined and overlaps with Plaintiff’s claims against Closet World. Additionally, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies to the present agreement.[1] The FAA requires the arbitration of all claims within the scope of an arbitration provision even if the action includes nonarbitrable claims by or against third parties. (9 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4.)

Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are stayed pending completion of arbitration. The Court sets a Status Conference for February 28, 2025, regarding the status of arbitration.

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

[1] The Arbitration Agreement states: “This Agreement is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq…” (Mireles Decl., Exh. B, p.1.)