Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: BC623542, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: April 14, 2023

Case Name: West v. Adams Hummus Bar JV, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 23STCV00896 

Matter: Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Defendants Adams Hummus Bar JV, LLC; Mizlala Wine Bar, Inc.; 

Romaine Hummus Bar JV, LLC; Mizlala Hollywood, Inc.; Mizlala Adams Investment Holdings, LLC; Mizlala Romaine Investment Holdings, LLC; and Daniel Elmaleh 

Responding Party: Plaintiff Eric West

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is an employment action.  Defendants Adams Hummus Bar JV, LLC, Mizlala Wine Bar, Inc., Romaine Hummus Bar JV, LLC, Mizlala Hollywood, Inc., Mizlala Adams Investment Holdings, LLC, Mizlala Romaine Investment Holdings, LLC, and Daniel Elmaleh seek to compel arbitration of this matter based on an arbitration agreement purportedly signed by Plaintiff Eric West as a component of his employment.

Plaintiff argues that “the purported arbitration agreement is only with Adams Hummus Bar, LLC. Defendants have not met their burden with any evidence that the other entities are even affiliated with Adams Hummus Bar, LLC. More importantly, however, Mizlala Adams Investment Holdings Trust and Mizlala Romaine Investment Holdings Trust, LLC have not shown that they are third party beneficiaries to the contract, or how the purported agreement applies to them.”

However, it is Plaintiff’s allegation that all Defendants are alter egos or joint employers (Compl. ¶ 4), so it does not matter that the agreement explicitly relates only to Adams Hummus Bar, LLC.

Plaintiff next argues that the subject arbitration agreement was procured by fraud because Plaintiff was given only the signature page for the agreement and did not see or read the first two pages.  Respectfully, the Court does not find Plaintiff’s assertion credible.

Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the subject agreement is unconscionable.  

“ ‘[U]nconscionability has both a “procedural” and a “substantive” element,’ the former focusing on ‘ “oppression” ’ or ‘ “surprise” ’ due to unequal bargaining power, the latter on ‘ “overly harsh” ’ or ‘ “one-sided” ’ results. [Citation.] ‘The prevailing view is that [procedural and substantive unconscionability] must both be present in order for a court to exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce a contract or clause under the doctrine of unconscionability.’ [Citation.] But they need not be present in the same degree.... [T]he more substantively oppressive the contract term, the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required to come to the conclusion that the term is unenforceable, and vice versa.”  (Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114.)

Plaintiff has failed to show any substantive unconscionability, pointing only to the agreement’s provision about selecting an arbitrator: “At the beginning of any arbitration process under this agreement, I and the Company will need to select an arbitrator by mutual agreement. Such an arbitrator shall be a retired California Superior Court Judge, or another qualified and impartial person that I and the Company decide upon. In the event we cannot agree on the selection of an arbitrator, I and the Company will select an alternative dispute resolution provider and request from that provider a list of an odd number of potential arbitrators. From that list we will alternatively strike arbitrators, with the Company going first, until one arbitrator is left. That arbitrator shall be the arbitrator who will hear our case. If I and the Company cannot agree on an alternative dispute resolution provider, an arbitrator will be appointed according to law.”

There is nothing unconscionable about the above provision, which provides for a fair and equitable selection process.  Because there is no substantive unconscionability, Plaintiff’s unconscionability defense fails.  (Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th 83, 114 [defense of unconscionability requires both procedural and substantive unconscionability].)  

Because a valid arbitration agreement encompasses Plaintiff’s claims, the Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted.  The action is stayed as to the Defendants that did not move to compel arbitration.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.