Judge Kevin C. Brazile, Case Number: 24STCV12415, Date: 2025-03-18 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULINGS

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE, DEPARTMENT 20 - JUDGE KEVIN C. BRAZILE

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling without appearing at the hearing by emailing Dept. 20 as soon as possible after reviewing a posted tentative. Though the Court makes every effort to post tentatives at least a day ahead of the hearing, this cannot be guaranteed due to the volume of motions. The email address is smcdept20@lacourt.org. In the subject line include:

1) The name and number of the case;
2) The word "SUBMITTING" or “NOT SUBMITTING” in all caps; and
3) The date of hearing.

In the body of the email include your name, contact information, and the party you represent (i.e. Defendant/moving party; Plaintiff/opposing party). Include all other parties on the email by "cc". Do not include any comments, questions or other information on your email.

PLEASE DO NOT call the court to submit on the tentative or to confirm receipt of your email. If you follow the instructions above, you will receive an automatic reply to your email confirming receipt of your email. If all parties submit, the tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date, the court will sign applicable orders/judgments, if any, and the final ruling will be posted online with the minute order. The moving party shall give notice of the final ruling.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify the other side by email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion.

Tentative rulings are not invitations nor opportunities, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

_________________________ * ______________________________

RULES ON USING EMAIL THE COURT

No ex-parte communications via email. Always copy all parties in all emails to Court.

Do not use email to file documents in Court. All documents must be filed in the Clerk’s office. Emails are not part of the official Court record. Do not use the email for any other purpose other than submitting/not submitting on tentative rulings or as ordered by the Court. Do not "cc" the Court on emails among the attorneys, parties or others. Do not use the email to ask questions regarding a case. For frequently asked questions go to the Court Information for Department 20 at www.lacourt.org.
The Court will not respond to inappropriate emails.

WARNING: Inappropriate use or misuse of the Court’s email or violation of these or other rules may result in sanctions, including blocking receipt of emails by that sender, after the first misuse/violation.

Moving Party: Defendants Brookfield Healthcare Center, Camille Villa Roman, and Kimberly Ramirez

The action is stayed in its entirety pending the outcome of binding arbitration.

This is an employment action. Plaintiff Regina Armenta (“Plaintiff”) sued defendants Brookfield Healthcare Center (“Brookfield”), Camille Villa Roman, and Kimberly Ramirez (together “Defendants”) on May 17, 2024, asserting fifteen (15) causes of action for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and related claims. Plaintiff alleges she worked for Brookfield for some period of time in 2021 and 2022. (See Compl., ¶ 13 [pleading inconsistent July 2022 employment start date].) Plaintiff became pregnant sometime around December 2021. (Id., ¶ 14.) As alleged, Defendants discriminated against her, harassed her, etc. based on her pregnancy and eventually constructively terminated her in March 2022. (Id., ¶¶ 17-23.)

On January 16, 2025, Defendants moved for an order compelling Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims against them. On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed her opposition. On March 11, 2025, Defendants replied.

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.) Generally, on a petition to compel arbitration, the court must 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. (Ibid.; see also Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219.)

Plaintiff agrees she executed an enforceable arbitration agreement with Brookfield that applies to this dispute. (Kanani Decl., ¶ 2.) In fact, she attests she attempted to initiate arbitration against Defendants with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) before filing her complaint. (Kanani Decl., ¶¶ 2-3 and Exh. A.) She contends the AAA proceeding was terminated at its outset because Defendants failed to pay their initial filing fee. (Kanani Decl., ¶¶ 4-5 and Exh. B.) Thus, she contends Defendants have waived their right to compel her to arbitrate.

Defendants deny they were served with a Demand for Arbitration. They point out that the exhibits Plaintiff attaches to her opposition contain a proof of service that reflects service by email, but lists no email address at which the recipient was purportedly served. (Reply, 6:22-7:15; Lomedico Decl., ¶ 10 and Exh. H.) Plaintiff also did not attach a copy of any email to her opposition to demonstrate service.

Defendant’s declarations and exhibits establish they never received an arbitration demand. (Howell Decl., ¶ 6; Holloway Decl., ¶ 7 [counsel attesting to search of Defendants’ email system for Demand].) Plaintiff’s evidence does not demonstrate otherwise. The parties’ arbitration agreement and AAA Rules required her to do so. (Howell Decl., ¶ 4 and Exh. A [agreement]; Lomedico Decl., ¶ 13 and Exh. K [AAA Rules].) Plaintiff has not demonstrated Defendant waived its right to arbitrate, because she has not demonstrated Defendant was aware of the arbitration in which it allegedly failed to participate or that Plaintiff followed the necessary procedures to initiate arbitration.

Plaintiff’s only ground for her opposition is waiver for failure to pay fees. She otherwise agrees she is bound to arbitrate her claims. Defendants are entitled to an order compelling her to do so. Because Plaintiff has failed to establish she served Defendants with the arbitration demand, she similarly has not established Defendant is required to pay Plaintiff’s fees and costs in arbitration. (See Opp., 4:14-15:8.)

Defendant’s motion is granted. The action is stayed pending the outcome of binding arbitration. The Court sets an OSC Re: Status of Arbitration for _______________, 2025.