Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV03751, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03751    Hearing Date: May 28, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. This matter is ordered stayed pending the completion of arbitration proceedings.

            On 2/14/2024, Plaintiff Andrew J. Chin (Plaintiff) filed suit against Doordash, Inc. (Defendant), alleging: (1) retaliation; (2) interference with taking leave; (3) whistleblower retaliation; (4) wrongful termination; and (5) unfair competition.

            On 3/12/2024, Defendant moved to compel arbitration, and 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

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 on 8/25/2020, Plaintiff entered into an agreement to arbitrate (the Arbitration Agreement) with DoorDash when he accepted his Offer of Employment as a Senior Manager. (Gil Decl. at ¶ 6.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not met its burden because the attached Arbitration Agreement includes only an electronic signature, and Roma Gill does not have personal knowledge to authenticate the document.

The Court finds the agreement to properly authenticated, and sufficient to meet Defendant’s initial burden. (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].) 

Roma Gill submitted a declaration stating that she has access to Defendant’s business records, including business files, that Defendant’s business records reflect that Plaintiff signed the Arbitration Agreement the same day he received an offer letter, and there is no record of Plaintiff opting out of the Agreement. (See Gill Decl.)

Plaintiff has not submitted any persuasive evidence which would suggest that this Agreement was forged or not found within Defendant’s records as contended.

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant arise out of the employment agreement, and thus fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. 

Given that Defendant has 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).)

II.               Plaintiff’s Burden 

The party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence any defense, such as unconscionability or duress. (Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 236.)

            Here, Plaintiff did not advance any defense to enforceability. As such, he has not met his burden to show that the arbitration agreement should be not be enforced.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is granted. This matter is ordered stayed pending the completion of arbitration proceedings.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2024

   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.