Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2023-00014247-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 28, 2024

03/29/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00014247-CU-OE-CTL LESTER VS THE SUPER DENTISTS INC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Defendant The Super Dentists Inc.'s motion to compel Plaintiff Kaytlin Lester to arbitration, strike class allegations, and stay or dismiss the complaint is CONTINUED.

The motion 'is made pursuant to Plaintiff's Dispute Resolution Agreement (submitted as Exhibit A to the concurrently filed Declaration of Nicole Bailey).' (ROA #17.) However, Lester's Application for Employment (submitted as Exhibit E to the Bailey Declaration) also includes an arbitration provision encompassing 'all disputes that may arise out of the employment context' and any claim 'arising from, related to, or having any relationship or connection whatsoever with [Lester's] . . . employment by . . . the Company.' Neither party addressed this separate arbitration provision, which is not identical to Exhibit A.

The court therefore requests additional briefing as follows: - Which arbitration provision controls? The parties are directed to address the following language in Exhibit E: 'This is the entire agreement between the Company and me regarding dispute resolution . . . .

It is further agreed and understood that any agreement contrary to the foregoing must be entered into, in writing, by the President of the Company.' (See Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 919, 931 ['The arbitration contract has supervening force because it specifies it can be modified only in a writing signed by the company president, and that president never signed any modification'].) - If the arbitration provision in Exhibit E controls, does that change the analysis or otherwise impact the outcome of the motion? The parties are directed to address the scope of the arbitration provision in Exhibit E, including whether it encompasses class claims and/or representative PAGA claims. The parties are also directed to address whether the court or the arbitrator should decide that issue. (See generally Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233 [addressing the issue of 'who decides whether the agreement permits or prohibits classwide arbitration, a court or the arbitrator?'].) The Super Dentists and Lester are directed to each file and serve a supplemental memorandum by April 5, 2024. Briefs shall not exceed five pages.

The hearing on the motion is continued to April 12, 2024 at 10:30am.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3053280  36