Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV28030, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Defendants DreamWorks Animation L.L.C. (successor in interest to DreamWorks Animation Television, LLC) (“DreamWorks”), NBCUniversal, LLC, Jen Yip, and Peter Gal (collectively, “DreamWorks Defendants”)

This is a harassment and wrongful termination action. Plaintiff sues DreamWorks Animation L.L.C. , NBCUniversal, LLC, Entertainment Partners Enterprises, LLC, Jen Yip, Peter Gal, Veronica Blakney (“Blakney”) and Does 1 through 100 pursuant to an October 25, 2024, complaint (“Complaint”) alleging causes of action for: (1) discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (2) hostile work environment harassment in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) breach of express oral contract not to terminate employment without good cause; (6) breach of implied-in-fact contract not to terminate employment without good cause; (7) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; (8) wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy; (9) whistleblower retaliation [Labor Code § 1102.5]; and (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On January 27, 2025, DreamWorks Defendants filed the instant motion to compel arbitration (the “Motion”). On March 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition (the “Opposition”). On June 5, 2025, DreamWorks Defendants filed a reply (the “Reply”).

Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d), the Court may take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States”.

Pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, the Court takes judicial notice of the following: (1) Order Granting Defendants Robinhood Markets, Inc. and Hemal Doshi’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, Erkan v. Robinhood Markets, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-22-600149, dated October 17, 2022; and (2) Order Regarding Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, Kennedy v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-23-604370, dated April 28, 2023.

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), while a federal statute, applies in California courts and requires state courts to enforce arbitration agreements as required by the federal common law developed under the FAA. (Southland Corp. v. Keating (1984) 465 U.S. 1, 15-16.) The FAA preempts and invalidates state law and state judicial decisions that disfavor arbitration or require arbitration provisions to pass higher scrutiny. (Southland Corp., supra (1984) 465 U.S. at 12; Perry v. Thomas (1987) 482 U.S. 483, 490.) If the parties designate the FAA applies, then California arbitration law is preempted. (Rodriguez v. American Techs., Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1121-1122.)

A court’s inquiry is limited to a determination of (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and (2) whether the arbitration agreement covers the dispute. (9 U.S.C. § 4; Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostics Systems, Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130; Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (2002) 537 U.S. 79, 84; Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. (9th Cir. 1999) 175 F.3d 716, 720 [if the finding is affirmative on both counts the FAA requires the Court to enforce the arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms]; Lacayo v. Cataline Restaurant Group Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 244, 257 [Where moving party meets initial burden, “the party opposing arbitration must prove by a preponderance of the evidence any defense to the petition”].)

“Parties are not required to arbitrate their disagreements unless they have agreed to do so. A contract to arbitrate will not be inferred absent a ‘clear agreement.’ When determining whether a valid contract to arbitrate exists, we apply ordinary state law principles that govern contract formation. In California, a ‘clear agreement’ to arbitrate may be either express or implied in fact.” (Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc. (9th Cir. 2014) 755 F.3d 1089, 1092-93 [applying California law] (internal citations omitted).) In determining the enforceability of an arbitration agreement, the court first considers “two ‘gateway issues’ of arbitrability: (1) whether there was an agreement to arbitrate between the parties, and (2) whether the agreement covered the dispute at issue” (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.) The court is only required to make a finding of the agreement’s existence, not an evidentiary determination of its validity. (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp., supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 219.)

In support of this Motion, DreamWorks Defendants attach a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement and the DreamWorks Animation Television, L.L.C. Writer/Individual Standard Terms and Conditions executed by Plaintiff on April 29, 2020 (the “Agreement”). (Yip Decl., Exs. 1-2.) In relevant portion, the Agreement states: “Any controversy, claim, or dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement or this agreement to arbitrate, including, without limitation, the interpretation, performance, formation, validity, breach, or enforcement of this Agreement, and further including any such controversy, claim, or dispute against or involving any officer, director, agent, employee, affiliate, successor, predecessor, or assign of a party to this Agreement (each, a “Dispute”), shall be fully and finally adjudicated by binding arbitration to the fullest extent allowed by law (the “Arbitration”).” (Yip Decl., Ex. 2, ¶ 14(a).)

In the Opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Agreement is unenforceable by operation of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), 9 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.

The EFAA states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, at the election of the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute, or the named representative of a class or in a collective action alleging such conduct, no predispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to the sexual assault dispute or the sexual harassment dispute.” (9 U.S.C. § 402.) The preceding section defines a sexual harassment dispute as “dispute relating to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable Federal, Tribal, or State law.” (9 U.S.C. § 401.) Under the EFAA, when a plaintiff's lawsuit contains at least one claim that fits within the scope of the act, the arbitration agreement is unenforceable as to all claims asserted in the lawsuit. (Liu v. Miniso Depot CA, Inc. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 791, 800.)

The Complaint includes a hostile work environment/harassment cause of action. Plaintiff alleges that his colleague Blakney made unwanted sexual advances towards Plaintiff, called Plaintiff repeatedly and left him inappropriate voicemail messages, “used her foot to rub [Plaintiff’s] groin area over his pants without his consent,” showed up to Plaintiff’s house uninvited, forced Plaintiff to have sex with her, broke into Plaintiff’s house and internet accounts and threatened to “ruin his career” if he would not oblige her. (Compl., ¶¶ 15-27.)

In the Reply, DreamWorks Defendants for the first time argue that Plaintiff has not alleged a plausible sexual harassment cause of action against them. In Yost v. Everyrealm, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2023) 657 F.Supp.3d 563, 567, the Court states that “where a party seeks to invoke the EFAA based on a claim of sexual harassment, such a claim must have been plausibly pled.” DreamWorks Defendants argue that none of the alleged harassing conduct occurred in the workplace nor was the alleged harassment committed by a supervisor. (Reply, pp. 9:11-10:22.) DreamWorks Defendants also argue that they were only made aware of the conduct after it had already ended and that Plaintiff does not allege that any incidents of harassment occurred after he reported the issue to DreamWorks Human Resources. (Reply, pp. 10:23-11:16.)

DreamWorks Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a sexual harassment claim against them; however, they do not dispute that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged a sexual harassment claim against Blakney. The EFAA applies to bar an entire “case” from arbitration, not just the claims for sexual harassment (Liu, supra, 105 Cal.App.5th at p. 800.) It follows that the EFAA applies to all defendants in such a case as well, not just the parties against whom the sexual harassment claim is directly alleged. DreamWorks Defendants have cited no authority suggesting otherwise. Thus, the Court finds that the EFAA applies.

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