Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV33769, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33769    Hearing Date: September 14, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Al Tyrone Jackson sued defendant The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. on October 18, 2022 for wrongful termination. Defendant moved to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claim on April 13, 2023. That motion is now before the court. Plaintiff has filed no opposition, and defendant no reply.

The court GRANTS defendant’s motion and STAYS this action pending completion of arbitration proceedings or until further order of this court.

          A Status Conference Re: Arbitration is set for March 6, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 72 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles CA 90012.

Legal Standard

          Under California and federal law, public policy favors arbitration as an efficient and less expensive means of resolving private disputes. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blasé (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 8-9; AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333, 339.) “[U]nder both the [Federal Arbitration Act] and California law, ‘arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.’” (Higgins v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1247.)

The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence.  (Engalla, supra, 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.)  A petition to compel arbitration must allege both a “written agreement to arbitrate” the controversy, and that a party to that agreement “refuses to arbitrate” the controversy. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) It then becomes plaintiff’s burden, in opposing the motion, to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to her opposition. (Ibid.)

“Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 requires a trial court to grant a petition to compel arbitration ‘if the court determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists.’”  (Avery v. Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 50, 59, quoting Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2).) Accordingly, “when presented with a petition to compel arbitration, the court’s first task is to determine whether the parties have in fact agreed to arbitrate the dispute.” (Avery, supra, at p. 59.)

The court must then grant the petition unless it finds either (1) no written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) the right to compel arbitration has been waived; (3) grounds exist for revocation of the agreement; or (4) litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219.)

Discussion

Existence of an Arbitration Agreement

          Defendant advances the declaration of Laurie Lambert-Gaffney, Vice President of Staff Relations for The Cheesecake Factory Inc. (Lamb. Decl., ¶ 1.) Lambert-Gaffney authenticates a six-page Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims that plaintiff executed on April 24, 2022 with “The Cheesecake Factory Bakery Incorporated, a California corporation, and its parents, subsidiaries and affiliated entities ... .” (Id., Ex. A, p. 1.) Lambert-Gaffney also declares that defendant is a parent company of The Cheesecake Factory Bakery Incorporated, the direct signatory to the agreement. (Id., ¶ 1.) The portion of the agreement listing “Claims Covered” includes “Claims for wrongful termination of employment, retaliation, violation of public policy, [and] constructive discharge ... .” (Id., Ex. A, pp. 1-2.)

          Defendant has established the existence of an arbitration agreement.

Opposition to Enforcement

          The court may deny a proper petition to compel arbitration on four grounds: (1) that no valid written agreement exists, (2) arbitration has been waived, (3) grounds exist for its revocation, or (4) another action is pending.

          Plaintiff has submitted no opposition. No facts in the record suggest either that defendant waived its right to arbitrate, or that another action is pending. Nor does anything in the agreement or otherwise before the court suggest the written agreement is not valid. No defense to enforcement is apparent from the face of the arbitration agreement. Plaintiff has made no showing of either procedural or substantive unconscionability. (See Armendariz v. Foundation Healthcare Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114.)

Defendant has established the existence of an arbitration agreement, and plaintiff has not offered any facts or argument in opposition, as is his burden.  For this reason, the motion is granted.