Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 20STCV47729, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47729    Hearing Date: May 22, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion is CONTINUED, to allow for an evidentiary hearing to be held.

            On 12/14/2020, Plaintiff Velma Martinez (Plaintiff) filed suit against the Quarter Pound House, Inc. (Defendant), alleging: (1) discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; (4) declaratory judgment; and (5) wrongful termination.

            Now, Defendant moves to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and to stay these proceedings.

Legal Standard

Where the Court has determined that an agreement to arbitrate a controversy exists, the Court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy …unless it determines that…  grounds exist for rescission of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) Among the grounds which can support rescission are fraud, duress, and unconscionability. (Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 231, 239.) The Court may also decline to compel arbitration wherein there is possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2 (c).)

Discussion

I.                   Defendants’ Burden

The party moving to compel arbitration “bears the burden of proving [the] existence [of an arbitration agreement] by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.) The moving party also bears the burden of demonstrating that the claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.)

A.    Existing Agreement

Defendant submitted evidence that an arbitration agreement was signed by Plaintiff on 12/15/2018. (Hwang Decl., Exh. A.)

            In opposition, Plaintiff does not dispute that the signature is hers.

            However, after reviewing the evidence submitted as part of Plaintiff’s opposition, the Court concludes that an evidentiary hearing should be held to determine whether or not the arbitration agreement is enforceable. This is based on several considerations.

First, Plaintiff’s employment began in March 2015, and was not presented with the arbitration agreement until December 2018. (Kwang Decl., ¶ 4.) Courts have noted that the economic pressure to accept an arbitration to keep one’s job is far greater than in a pre-employment context because “[e]mployees who have worked in a job for a substantial length of time have likely come to rely on the benefits of employment. For many, the sudden loss of a job may create major disruptions, including abrupt income reduction and an unplanned reentry in to the job market.” (OTO, L.L.C., v. Kho (2019) 447 P.3d 680, 727.)

Second, Plaintiff submitted a declaration stating her native language is Spanish, and that she cannot read, write, or speak English. (Plaintiff Decl., ¶ 4.)

Given that Plaintiff had already been employed for several years by the time of signing, Defendant would presumably have been aware of Plaintiff’s language skills. While “it is generally unreasonable…to neglect to read a written contract before signing,” Courts have refused to enforce arbitration agreements where the signing party was deprived a reasonable opportunity to learn the character and essential terms of the document. (Rosenthal, supra, 14 Cal.4^th 394, 427.) As such, it is essential here to determine whether or not Defendant knowingly presented Plaintiff a legal document in a language she could not understand. 

Third, absent from Defendant’s declaration is a description of the circumstances in which Plaintiff was presented with the arbitration agreement. The moment when an employee is approached to sign an arbitration agreement is important in that it illuminates the type of opportunity the signing party had to explore the contents of the document. An employee who is approached after a shift with a document to review and sign is under different constraints than an employee who is either about to begin his or her shift or who is in the middle of working.  (Kho, supra, 447 P.3d at p. 720.)

Here, it is important to understand what Defendant understood about Plaintiff’s English language skills, and the circumstances in which they presented her with the agreement, in order for the Court to determine whether or not Plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to learn the contents of the agreement.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is continued to allow for an evidentiary hearing to be held.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.