Judge: Lon F. Hurwitz, Case: 2019-01051868, Date: 2022-12-02 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Arbitration

2. Status Conference

Motion to Compel Arbitration-Ruling

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Action is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s individual claim. The remaining representative PAGA claim is stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.

The court concludes that there exists a valid agreement to arbitrate the individual claims asserted by Plaintiff and that no grounds exist to bar enforcement of the agreement. (CCP § 1281.2.) Plaintiff’s claims of unconscionability are unsupported by the language of the arbitration agreement or can be severed. Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proving the facts of any defense to enforceability.

Defendant has provided a Comprehensive Agreement Employment At-Will and Arbitration Policy (“Agreement”), which includes an arbitration provision governing “every dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to Employee's employment with Company including, without limitation, the termination of that employment.” (Souza Decl., Ex. 1.) Plaintiff does not dispute she signed the agreement, which both has “arbitration” in the title and contains a section titled, “NOTICE” which specifically explains that the employee is giving up any rights to have matters determined in a jury trial.

Plaintiff’s argument that she allegedly failed to understand what she was signing because she was “rushed” into signing the documents within her employment packet (including the Agreement) is unavailing. “The general rule is that, when a person with the capacity of reading and understanding an instrument signs it, he is, in the absence of fraud and imposition, bound by its contents, and is estopped from saying that its provisions are contrary to his intentions or understanding.” (Palmquist v. Mercer (1954) 43 Cal. 2d 92, 98.) Plaintiff does not present any evidence that she lacked capacity to read or understand the Agreement. Thus, Defendant has carried its burden to show the existence of an arbitration agreement.

Further, the defense of unconscionability requires that the arbitration agreement be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. (De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc. (2018) 5 Cal. 5th 966, 982.) Plaintiff fails to show any procedural unconscionability as the arbitration provision is clearly provided in this one-page Agreement.

With respect to the implicit PAGA waiver, the Court finds that this provision is substantively unconscionable and unenforceable; therefore, the Court severs it from the agreement pursuant to the severance clause in the Agreement and Civ. Code § 1670.5. The remaining Agreement is not substantively unconscionable, and is therefore enforceable.

Moving Party to give Notice.