Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00691, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCV00691 Hearing Date: January 10, 2023 Dept: C
ALBA
MELENDEZ-RODRIGUEZ v. CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS INC., et al.
CASE NO.: 22NWCV00691
HEARING: 01/10/23
#3
TENTATIVE ORDER
Defendants CitiStaff and CRK’s motion to compel Plaintiff to
arbitrate her complaint against Defendants is GRANTED.
The Court STAYS the proceeding in this case pending
the arbitrator’s final resolution.
Moving party(s) to give notice.
On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff Alba Melendez-Rodriguez
(“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants CitiStaff Solutions Inc.,
Camino Real Foods, Inc., and John Doe (collectively “Defendants”) for eighteen
causes of action. Plaintiff filed her
complaint against her employer, Defendant CitiStaff Solutions Inc.
(“CitiStaff”), and its customer, Camino Real Foods, Inc. d/b/a Camino Real
Kitchen (“CRK”), for alleged acts of a CitiStaff employee outside the scope of
his employment.
On September 14, 2022, Defendants CitiStaff and CRK filed a
motion for an order compelling Plaintiff to submit all her causes of action to
arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Agreement she signed and entered
with CitiStaff. The motion is made pursuant
to the California Arbitration Act, California Code of Civil Procedure Sections
1281.2, 1281.6, and 1290 (“CAA”), and the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§
1, et seq, (“FAA”).
On December 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed her opposition. On December 30, 2022, Defendants CitiStaff
and CRK filed their reply.
“A written agreement to submit to
arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is
valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the
revocation of any contract.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 1281.) “On petition of a party
to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to
arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such
controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to
arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the
controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel
arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the
revocation of the agreement.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)¿
¿
In
ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, “the trial court sits as a trier of
fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary
evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court's discretion, to
reach a final determination.”¿ (Peng v. First Republic Bank (2013) 219
Cal.App.4th 1462, 1468.)¿ The court’s involvement is limited to “determining
(1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether
the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.”¿ (See Omar v. Ralphs
Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955.)¿ “California has a strong public
policy in favor of arbitration and any doubts regarding the arbitrability of a
dispute are resolved in favor of arbitration.”¿ (Coast Plaza Doctors Hosp.
v. Blue Cross of Cal. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686.)¿
¿
“The
party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an
arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and the party
opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence any defense, such as unconscionability.”¿ (Pinnacle Museum Tower
Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Dev. (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)¿¿¿
1.
A valid written agreement to arbitrate between
the parties exists.
Defendants CitiStaff and CRK move to compel Plaintiff to
arbitrate her claims, contending that Plaintiff entered into a valid and
enforceable arbitration agreement.
The relevant language of the arbitration provision contained
in the Arbitration Agreement states:
1.
Date and signatures: This Arbitration
Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between the Employee and
CitiStaff, their buyers, customers, employees, and agents (collectively
referred to as the “Parties”) on the date signed below. Employee acknowledges
that signing this Agreement is voluntary.
2.
Private Non-judicial Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR): In consideration of each party's agreement to arbitrate
employment-related disputes, they waive their right to judicial process and
jury trial, and mutually agree that it is in the best interest of the employee,
the employer and the parties involved avoid unnecessary, costly, time-consuming
public litigation, and agree to submit to binding Arbitration all disputes
arising out of or relating to the employment relationship between the Employee
and the Employer.
3.
Final and binding Arbitration: The
Employee and the Employer agree to exclusively submit to final and binding
Arbitration any and all disputes, claims, or controversies (“Claims”) that they
may have against each other, and against the Employer's clients, including its
current and former agents, owners, officers, directors, or employees, arising
out of the employment relationship between the Employee and the Employer or the
termination of such relationship.
4.
Covered Claims: Claims covered by this
Agreement include without limitation claims of discrimination and harassment in
employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended; the California
Fair Employment and Housing Act; the Equal Pay Act; the Wage Theft Protection
Act; the Law Against Age Discrimination in Employment, and its amendments; the
Americans with Disabilities Act; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act; California Labor Code, including any claim filed by the
Employee related to compensation; meal and rest breaks; notifications for
remuneration disclosure; labor notifications of any nature; breach of
employment contract or implied agreement of good faith and fair dealing; unfair
dismissal; or unlawful conduct (whether intentionally or negligently) including
defamation, false statement, fraud, and the infliction of emotional stress.
(Exhibits A and B, Arbitration Agreement, ¶¶1- 4.)
Defendant CitiStaff submitted a declaration by its HR
Director who has personal knowledge of the Arbitration Agreement as business
records. (Declaration of Aurelio Cerdas
¶ 4.) On April 28, 2021, Plaintiff
signed the Arbitration Agreement with CitiStaff as part of on-boarding
documents in her primary and preferred language, Spanish. (Cerdas Decl. ¶ 5.)
Based on the foregoing, a valid agreement
to arbitrate exists.
2. The agreement encompasses the disputes at issue.
Plaintiff filed this action against her employer, Defendant
CitiStaff, and its customer, Defendant CRK, for alleged acts of a CitiStaff
employee outside the scope of his employment.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges eighteen causes of action:
three against John Doe and fifteen against Defendants CitiStaff and CRK. The causes of action against Defendants CitiStaff
and CRK include sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, hostile work
environment, wrongful constructive discharge of employment in violation of
public policy, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and other
causes of action. These causes of action are within the disputes covered by the
Arbitration Agreement. (Exhibits A and
B, Arbitration Agreement, ¶¶ 3- 4.) Accordingly, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate any defense to enforcement.
3. The agreement exhibits neither a high degree
of procedural unconscionability, nor a high degree of substantive unconscionability.
Plaintiff
asserts as a defense against arbitration that the Arbitration Agreement is
unconscionable.
To avoid mandatory
arbitration on a defense that a contract is unconscionable, the party arguing
against the contract must show both evidence in the contract of both procedural
unconscionability and substantive unconscionability. (Crippen v.
Central Valley RV Outlet. Inc. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1165.)
A party need not,
however, present both types of unconscionability in the same degree, as the
court evaluates substantive and procedural unconscionability “on a sliding
scale.” (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.
(2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114 (Armendariz).) “[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.” (Ibid.)
A.
Plaintiff shows only a modest degree of procedural unconscionability
affecting the agreement.
Plaintiff contends that the Arbitration Agreement is procedurally
unconscionable because it is an adhesion contract and it did not include the
arbitration rules, which is enough to establish a small degree of procedural
unconscionability.
The procedural element of an
unconscionable contract generally takes the form of an adhesion contract
“imposed and drafted by [a] party of superior bargaining strength, [and]
relegates to [a] subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the
contract or reject it.” (Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at
p. 113.) In other words, a contract for employment is an adhesion
contract if the employment is conditioned on the prospective employee’s
signature being entered on the contract.
Generally, an adhesion contract remains enforceable unless the party
seeking to avoid arbitration also presents other evidence in favor of
procedural unconscionability. (Lane v. Francis Capital Management LLC
(2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 676, 689 (Lane).)
Here, Defendant CitiStaff told Plaintiff
that she had to sign the paperwork if she wanted the job. (Declaration of Alba Melendez-Rodriguez ¶
4.) The Arbitration Agreement is a
classic adhesion contract. (See Armendariz,
supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 113.) On its own, the fact that the
Arbitration Agreement is a contract of adhesion presents only a small degree of
procedural unconscionability. (See Lane, supra, 224
Cal.App.4th at p. 689.)
Plaintiff also contends that that
Arbitration Agreement failed to include a copy of the arbitration rules. However, Section 10 of the Arbitration
Agreement provides:
10.
Arbitration rules: The parties agree to abide by the applicable rules of the selected ADR provider, if applicable, or
those agreed upon by stipulation or order
of the Arbitrator. You can find the rules for initiating the arbitration of a claim and the rules of
procedure for ADR providers at: IVAMS
Arbitration and Mediation Services, 909- 466-1665, www.ivams.com, Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR),
800-404-4537, www.jdr4adr.com. (Exhibits A and B, Arbitration Agreement, ¶¶
10.)
Notwithstanding the
foregoing, Plaintiff’s attorney stated, “After thoroughly reviewing both
websites, I was unable to find the rules for arbitration used by either service
provider.” (Declaration of Maria E.
Garcia ¶ 2.) Still, the Arbitration
Agreement states that the rules can also be by stipulation or ordered by the
arbitrator and phone numbers are also provided.
(Exhibits A and B, Arbitration Agreement, ¶¶ 10.) Further, even if the Arbitration Agreement
failed to include the arbitration rules, controlling authority indicates that
said failure is evidence of only a small degree of procedural
unconscionability. (See Peng 219
Cal.App.4th at p. 1471.) Therefore, to
show that the Agreement is unenforceable due to unconscionability, Plaintiff
will need to present strong evidence that the Agreement is substantively
unconscionable, to compensate for the minimal showing as to procedural
unconscionability. (See Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p.
113.)
B.
Plaintiff shows a modest degree of substantive
unconscionability in the agreement.
Plaintiff contends that the Arbitration Agreement is substantively
unconscionable because it forces Plaintiff to use an arbitrator from either
IVAMS or JDR, thereby creating the repeat player effect. However, the Court disagrees because each ADR
provider will provide a list of neutral arbitrators and the parties are then
free to agree on an arbitrator. To the extent
that Defendants being repeat players is substantively unconscionable, this
modest amount of substantive unconscionability, when weighed against the
moderate amount of procedural unconscionability, is not sufficient to render
the arbitration agreement unenforceable. (See Mercuro v. Superior Court (2002)
96 Cal.App.4th 167, 178-179 [noting that the repeat player effect is of limited
significance in an unconscionability determination].) As Plaintiff has not shown unconscionability,
there is no need to analyze severability.
Defendants CitiStaff and CRK’s motion to compel Plaintiff to
arbitrate her complaint against Defendants is GRANTED.
The Court STAYS the proceeding in this case pending
the arbitrator’s final resolution.
Defendants CitiStaff and CRK are ORDERED to give
notice.