Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV08827, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08827    Hearing Date: October 23, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. This proceeding is stayed pending the completion of arbitration.

            On 4/20/2023, Plaintiff Jorge Riegos Castillo aka Jorge Rios (Plaintiff) filed suit against Lazy Dog Restaurant, LLC dba Lazy Dog Restaurant and Bar, alleging: (1) failure to pay wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (5) failure to provide itemized wage statements; (6) waiting time penalties; (7) failure to indemnify; (8) unfair competition; and (9) failure to permit inspection of personnel and payroll records.

            Now, Defendant moves to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

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 of an arbitration agreement that was electronically signed by Plaintiff on 4/4/2021 at 12:06 am. (Reed Decl., Exh. 1.)

            In opposition, Plaintiff claims that he did not sign the agreement, citing in support that: (1) the Agreement was submitted by an employee hired seven years after Plaintiff was hired and has no personal knowledge as to whether or not Plaintiff signed the Agreement;(2) the submitted Agreement is preceded by a page that shows that the document was accepted on Sunday April 4, 2021 at 12:06 a.m. However, Plaintiff never worked for Defendant past 11:00 p.m. and did not work past 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays; (3) the document was signed electronically using an online platform called UltiPro. Plaintiff submitted a declaration that he never personally accessed the UltiPro application since 2018; and (4) the Agreement was presented to Plaintiff two months after having reported a work-related injury, and after Plaintiff had already worked for Defendant for ten years.

            As to Plaintiff’s first contention, the arbitration agreement has been sufficiently authenticated. While Reed may not have been an employee at the time of signing, the document was located in Plaintiff’s personnel file, and was kept in the regular course of business. (See Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th at pp. 218-219 [a party moving to compel arbitration need do no more than attach a signed copy of the agreement to the motion to satisfy the authentication requirement].) 

            As to the remaining contentions, the Court, after reviewing the evidence submitted in support of Plaintiff’s remaining arguments, concludes that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Agreement was signed by Plaintiff.

            Ms. Reed stated in declaration that upon an individual’s hire, employees must create a personal UltiPro account with an individual username and password. To electronically review and sign the onboarding documents—including the arbitration agreement—the employee must sign into the employee’s personal UltiPro account with the employee’s unique individual username and password. Lazy Dog cannot access the new employee’s individual password for their UltiPro account. (Reed Decl., ¶ 4.) Here, Plaintiff contends unpersuasively that in 2018 his manger downloaded UltiPro on his phone, created his account, and wrote down his username and password on a piece of paper, which Plaintiff states he then lost. (Plaintiff Decl., ¶ 8.)  Yet, Plaintiff, presumably anticipating that there is a record of him submitting multiple vacation requests through UltiPro, claims that he would communicate these vacation requests to his manager Nancy who would then access his UltiPro account on his behalf to process the request. However, Plaintiff offers no explanation as to how Nancy would have known the unique username and password to his account if even he did not (and the paper with the information was lost), nor has he shown that UltiPro did not have a function that would have allowed him to reset his password or confirm his username in order to access UltiPro.

            As such, the Court finds inadequate evidence to conclude that his UltiPro was, or could have been, accessed by anyone other than him. While Plaintiff claims he did not work past 8 pm on Saturdays, the fact that the agreement was signed at 12 pm, on its own, is insufficient to show that he could not have signed the agreement. This is because Plaintiff himself states the UltiPro was downloaded on his phone, and thus could have been accessed by him at any time.

Given that Defendants have established by a preponderance of the evidence that an arbitration agreement exists, and that Plaintiff’s claims are covered by that agreement, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to establish that the arbitration clause should not be enforced. (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236. (Pinnacle).)

Plaintiff did not raise any additional arguments in opposition as to why the agreement should not be enforced.

As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be compelled to arbitrate. This action is ordered stayed pending the completion of arbitration.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  October    , 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.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  

It is so ordered.

Dated:  October    , 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.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.