Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 25STCV01892, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV01892    Hearing Date: April 3, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Raymond Handling Solutions (“Defendant”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Denay Gonzales (“Plaintiff”) to arbitrate her claims against Defendant and staying this action pending the completion of arbitration.

The Court DENIES the motion to compel arbitration.

Background

This is an employment case.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Sales Coordinator. Plaintiff began working for Defendant on February 2, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that she took time off from work for her pregnancy and subsequently for a back injury. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant terminated her because she could not return to her position by May 28, 2024, when Defendant told her to.

Plaintiff filed this action on January 23, 2025, raising claims for (1) sex and gender discrimination; (2) disability discrimination; (3) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations; (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

On February 28, 2025, Defendant moved to compel arbitration. Plaintiff filed an opposition and Defendant filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Under both the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a contract. (Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.)

The party moving to compel arbitration must establish the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) In ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, the court must first determine whether the parties actually agreed to arbitrate the dispute, and general principles of California contract law help guide the court in making this determination. (Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 534, 541.)

“A petition to compel arbitration or to stay proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and 1281.4 must state, in addition to other required allegations, the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration. The provisions must be stated verbatim or a copy must be physically or electronically attached to the petition and incorporated by reference” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330.) “With respect to the moving party's burden to provide evidence of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, it is generally sufficient for that party to present a copy of the contract to the court. Once such a document is presented to the court, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to compel, who may present any challenges to the enforcement of the agreement and evidence in support of those challenges.” (Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1160 [internal citations omitted].)

Discussion

Existence of an Arbitration Agreement

“[A]rbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.” (AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America (1986) 475 U.S. 643, 648.)

Defendant has not established that the parties entered an arbitration agreement.

Plaintiff declares that she has no memory of electronically signing any arbitration agreement. (Gonzales Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff declares that she knows that she did not sign an arbitration agreement by hand. (Gonzales Decl. ¶ 4.)

Defendant’s Human Resources Manager Stacey Pasquale declares that Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement by hand on April 26, 2014 and electronically on December 16, 2022. (Pasquale Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7, 10.) But there are no copies of either agreement attached to Pasquale’s declaration.  This is true notwithstanding the reference to an Exhibit A in the declaration which is purportedly the agreement signed by hand.  Nor does the declaration attempt to authenticate an electronic agreement.

Defendant’s attorney, Lauren Raya, attached with the initial motion an unsigned form agreement that she declares is a true and accurate copy of the arbitration agreement that the parties allegedly entered. (Raya Decl. ¶ 4.) Raya does not explain how she has personal knowledge of the authenticity of the agreement or its applicability to this case..

Defendant has not carried its burden to show the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties.

The Court denies the motion to compel arbitration.