Judge: Lon F. Hurwitz, Case: 2021-01223381, Date: 2022-12-02 Tentative Ruling

1.    Motion to Compel Arbitration

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Action is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim is compelled to arbitration. 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 his burden of proving the facts of any defense to enforceability.

Defendant has provided a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate (“Agreement”), which includes an arbitration provision governing “any and all disputes, claims or controversies between the parties, including but not limited to any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the employment relationship between the parties, or the formation or termination of the employment relationship.” (Yoachum Decl., Ex. A.) Plaintiff does not dispute he signed the agreement.

Plaintiff’s argument that he allegedly failed to read and/or understand what he was signing 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 he 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.

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.

Finally, the Court notes Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s oversized Opposition, but declines to disregard the brief in its entirety as the 11 extra lines on page 16 consist primarily of citations and one-paragraph conclusion, neither of which were persuasive in this Court’s ruling.

The remaining representative claims are stayed pending the outcome of arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims.

Defendant’s objections are all overruled on the merits, with the exception of the objections to Exhibit “A” (Nos. 10 and 11) which are sustained on the grounds no such exhibit was attached.

2.    Status Conference