Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV37394, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37394    Hearing Date: October 24, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant SPS Technologies (“SPS”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) to submit his claims to binding arbitration and stay the proceedings, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act and the California Arbitration Act.

The motion of SPS to compel arbitration is GRANTED.   The Court stays this case pending the outcome of the arbitration.

Background

          This action arises out of an employment dispute. Plaintiff Jose Nunez (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendants SPS Technologies, LLC (“SPS”), Precision Castparts Corp. (“Precision”), Alex Morris (“Morris”) and Maile Ashdown (“Ashdown”). Plaintiff worked for SPS and Precision as a machine operator from April 1997 to March 2022. In April 2004, Plaintiff learned that he had hearing loss, which resulted from working around loud machinery. Plaintiff informed his sMorris,sor, defendant and Director of Operations, Morris about his hearing loss. 

In January 2022, Plaintiff was unable to hear Morris’ instructions. Frustrated, Morris told Plaintiff to go to his doctor to get his hearing aid checked. On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff used an Allen wrench on top of a machine to make adjustments, but the wrench was caught in the machine’s belt and plaintiff’s finger was fractured. 

On March 25, 2022, Plaintiff’s employment was terminated on Morris’ recommendation for allegedly using an improper tool and to prevent another accident. Defendant Maile Ashdown (“Ashdown”), a Human Resources Generalist, told plaintiff that it was inconvenient to have him work there because he was likely to have another accident. Plaintiff wanted to take the severance agreement home because he could not read English, but Ashdown refused. Ashdown refused to release Plaintiff’s final check without a signed severance agreement.

          On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed this action against SPS, Precision, Morris, and Ashdown, alleging eight causes of action for: (1) Discrimination (against SPS and Precision); (2) Failure to Accommodate (against SPS and Precision); (3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (against SPS and Precision);  (4) Harassment (against SPS, Precision, Morris, and Ashdown); (5) Retaliation (against SPS and Precision); (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation (against SPS and Precision); (7) Defamation/Libel/Slander (against SPS, Precision, Morris, and Ashdown); and (8) Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy (against SPS and Precision).

On January 20, 2023, Defendant SPS filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay or dismiss the proceedings. On March 23, 2023, Plaintiff opposed the motion. On March 29, 2023, SPS replied and provided a supplemental declaration from Jennifer Adams. On April 18, 2023, the hearing on the motion was continued to June 15, 2023, to permit Plaintiff to file a sur-reply no later than five court days before the continued hearing date. Plaintiff did not file a sur-reply by the deadline of June 8, 2023. On June 9, 2023, SPS filed the declaration of Bart Baggett, a handwriting expert, in support of the motion to compel arbitration.

Legal Standard

When seeking to compel arbitration of a plaintiff’s claims, the defendant must allege the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.) The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the agreement. (Ibid.) After the court determines that an agreement to arbitrate exists, it then considers objections to its enforceability. (Ibid.) The Court must grant a petition to compel arbitration unless the defendant has waived the right to compel arbitration or if there are grounds to revoke the arbitration agreement. (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

“[T]he moving party bears the burden of producing prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy. [Citation.] The moving party can meet its initial burden by attaching to the motion or petition a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the opposing party's signature.” [Citation.] Alternatively, the moving party can meet its burden by setting forth the agreement's provisions in the motion. [Citation]; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330 [‘The provisions must be stated verbatim or a copy must be physically or electronically attached to the petition and incorporated by reference.’].)

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED. As a signatory of the arbitration agreement at issue, Jennifer Adams, defendant’s Director of Human Resources, is qualified to lay the foundation for the additional documents submitted in support of the reply. (Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 324 [“any ‘qualified witness’ who is knowledgeable about the documents may lay the foundation for introduction of business records”].)

Declaration of Bart Baggett

The Court declines to consider the Declaration of Bart Baggett because SPS filed it well after the deadline permitting SPS to do so. The Court already continued this hearing once due to SPS submitting a supplemental declaration with its reply. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-1538 [new evidence generally not permitted on reply papers unless it responds to issues raised in the opposing party’s opposition papers; otherwise, the hearing has to be continued to permit the opposing party an opportunity to respond to the new evidence].) Additionally, given Plaintiff’s failure to file a sur-reply in response to the Adams declaration provided with SPS’ reply, the Court construes such failure as an admission that the Adams declaration has merit and supports SPS’s reply arguments. Thus, the declaration of Bart Baggett is not necessary for the Court to reach its determination here.

Analysis

“The moving party bears the burden of producing ‘prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy.’ [Citation.]” (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165, quoting Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.) Here, SPS meets its burden by attaching a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear Plaintiff’s signature. (See Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165.) The agreement, titled “Dispute Resolution Policy,” (“Agreement”) is between defendant SPS Technologies, LLC, using its fictitious business name Air Industries Company, and Plaintiff. (Olivas Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. A.) Claims arising from Plaintiff’s employment with SPS, like the ones asserted in this action, are subject to arbitration. (Ibid. [“Arbitration shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for any dispute, grievance, claim, or controversy of any kind or nature…arising out of, related to, or connected with…your employment relationship with the Company…and the termination of your employment relationship with the Company and which may be brought in state, federal, or local court”].) 

          “If the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden and the opposing party disputes the agreement, then in the second step, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the agreement.” (Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165.) Here, Plaintiff asserts that he never signed the Agreement. (Nunez Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff also asserts that the signature that appears on the Agreement is not his signature and does not resemble his usual signature. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 3 & Ex. 1.) Plaintiff meets his burden in opposing the motion. (Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165 [The opposing party can do this in several ways. For example, the opposing party may testify under oath or declare under penalty of perjury that…the party never signed or does not remember signing the agreement”].) 

          “If the opposing party meets its burden of producing evidence, then in the third step, the moving party must establish with admissible evidence a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.” (Ibid.) SPS responds by stating that the signature on the Agreement is nearly identical to signatures that appear in other documents that Plaintiff signed during his employment with SPS. (Adams Decl. ¶¶ 6-12 & Exs. B-G.) SPS also argues that even if Plaintiff did not sign the Agreement, Plaintiff accepted its terms by continuing to work for defendant. (See Craig v. Brown & Root (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 420 [continued employment after receipt of arbitration agreement constitutes implied acceptance of agreement].) 

          As noted above, the hearing on this motion was continued following SPS’s submission of the declaration from Jennifer Adams with its reply to permit Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the new evidence and issues raised in connection therewith. However, Plaintiff did not file the sur-reply as the Court directed. (Minute Order (4/18/2023).) The Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to provide the sur-reply as a concession that the Adams declaration has merit and supports SPS’ reply arguments. Also, having reviewed the signatures from the other documents attached to the Adams declaration, (Adams Decl. ¶¶ 6-12 & Exs. B-G), the Court is persuaded that the signatures appear sufficiently identical to Plaintiff’s signature on the Agreement.

          Accordingly, the Court finds that SPS has met its burden in establishing the existence of a valid arbitration agreement that covers Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff made no other arguments in opposition to this motion.

          Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel arbitration and orders this action STAYED pending arbitration.