Judge Loren G. Freestone, Case Number: 37-2023-00021243-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2023-00021243-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024

06/14/2024 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 Wrongful Termination Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00021243-CU-WT-CTL STEFFEN VS RV SOLUTIONS INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Defendant RV Solutions Inc.'s motion to compel Plaintiff Janeen Steffen to arbitration is DENIED.

Preliminary Matters Steffen's request for judicial notice (ROA #64): Granted. (See Villareal v. LAD-T, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 446, 455 & fn. 3.) RV Solutions' evidentiary objections (ROA #67): Overruled.

Analysis 'A party to an arbitration agreement may petition the court to compel other parties to arbitrate a dispute that is covered by their agreement. The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence.' (Jones v. Jacobson (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1, 15.) The petitioner likewise bears the burden of establishing that he or she is a party to the arbitration agreement. (Id. at pp. 15–16; see, e.g., Flores v. Nature's Best Distribution, LLC (2016) 7 Cal.App.5th 1) In Flores, for example, the plaintiff sued four entities under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. (Flores, supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at pp. 3–4.) The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement signed by the plaintiff that stated, in pertinent part: 'In further consideration of the mutual benefits of the employment relationship between employee and Company, employee and Company agree to submit all legal, equitable and administrative disputes to the American Arbitration Association for mediation and binding arbitration.' (Id. at p. 4.) In affirming the trial court's order denying the motion, the court of appeal noted that the agreement stated it was between 'employee and Company,' but that the 'body of the Agreement does not define either term.' (Id. at p. 9.) The signature block for the employer was also not filled in, dated, or signed under the heading 'Authorized Employer Signature.' (Ibid.) Given these omissions, the court found that the agreement did 'not identify with which entity or entities plaintiff had agreed to submit 'all legal, equitable and administrative disputes' to the AAA for mediation and binding arbitration.' (Ibid.) Thus, the court held the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because, among other reasons, it was ambiguous as to whether it applied 'against any or all of defendants in the instant action.' (Id. at p. 11.) Here, the agreement states that the 'parties' agreed to arbitrate certain claims that they may have Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3095774 32 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: STEFFEN VS RV SOLUTIONS INC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00021243-CU-WT-CTL against each other arising out of the employment relationship. There is also reference to the 'Company' and the signature block includes a space for 'Employer Signature.' However, the terms 'parties,' 'Company,' and 'Employer' are undefined. The only company identified anywhere in the arbitration agreement is 'T. Fedder & Co., Inc. DBA San Diego Car Care.' An individual (Silvia Bello) signed on behalf of the 'employer,' but it is not clear who employs Bello and she did not indicate on which company's behalf she was signing. RV Solutions is not specifically referenced anywhere in the arbitration agreement, and its supporting memorandum never explains why it should nonetheless be entitled to enforce the agreement.

For the first time in its reply brief, RV Solutions argues that the agreement encompasses 'affiliates' of T.

Fedder, that it is such an affiliate, and that it has standing to enforce the agreement as a third-party beneficiary. These arguments needed to be made in RV Solutions initial memorandum, not its reply.

(See Maleti v. Wickers (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 181, 227–228.) It is also not clear that the agreement encompasses affiliates. RV Solutions relies on the fact that the document is entitled 'T. Fetter & Co., Inc. DBA San Diego Car Care and all affiliates Arbitration Agreement.' But, notwithstanding the title, the actual language of the agreement only uses the singular terms 'company' and 'employer,' without any reference to 'affiliates.' (See Jones, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 17; compare Ronay Family Limited Partnership v. Tweed (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 830, 839.) Even if the agreement did encompass T. Fetter's affiliates, the burden is on RV Solutions to establish that it is such an 'affiliate' and that 'the arbitration clause was made expressly for its benefit.' (See Fuentes v. TMCSF, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 541, 552; Jones, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at pp. 15–16.) There must be admissible evidence establishing that relationship. (See Fuentes, supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at pp. 549–552.) In evaluating whether RV Solutions met its burden, the court sits as the trier of fact and weighs all of the evidence to reach a final determination. (See Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.) The term 'affiliate' generally means a 'company effectively controlled by another company,' such as a 'branch, division, or subsidiary,' and refers to 'a relationship that is closer than a mere arm's length contractual relationship.' (Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1147, 1165–1166; accord Iqbal v. Ziadeh (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1, 9–12.) Here, the only evidence RV Solutions submitted on this issue is a declaration from its attorney (Shani Huang). Attorney Huang's declaration states, in pertinent part: 'Plaintiff, Janeen Steffen, was hired to work for RV Solutions, Inc. on March 16, 2022. She was hired to serve as the Airstream Sales Manager for RV Solutions, Inc., an affiliate of T. Fetter & Co., Inc. DBA San Diego Car Care.' 'On her first day of employment with RV Solutions, Plaintiff attended an orientation where she was provided 'new hire paperwork,' which included an Arbitration Agreement.' However, there is no indication that Attorney Huang has any personal knowledge of Steffen's onboarding or the particular relationship between RV Solutions and T. Fetter. (See San Jose Neurospine v. Aetna Health of California, Inc. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 953, 961–962; Park v. First American Title Co. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1427; Johnson v. Drew (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 614, 618–619; Weir v. Snow (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 283, 290; Maltby v. Shook (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 439, 353–354.) Attorney Huang's description of RV Solutions as an 'affiliate of T. Fetter' is also an impermissible conclusion. (See Taylor v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 994.) She does not attest to any evidentiary facts supporting that conclusion.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3095774 32 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: STEFFEN VS RV SOLUTIONS INC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00021243-CU-WT-CTL Steffen, in turn, submitted her own declaration that states, in pertinent part: 'I have never been employed by T. Fetter & Co., Inc., and was never made aware that RV Solutions, Inc. is a subsidiary of T. Fetter & Co., Inc. I am unaware of the company T. Fetter & Co., Inc. and how it has any relation or connection to RV Solutions Inc. To my knowledge, the name T. Fetter & Co., Inc.

does not appear anywhere on my paystub or the company handbook that was provided to me. I have only ever received wage statements that name the company 'RV Solutions, Inc.' as the employer.' 'I had no knowledge of entering into an arbitration agreement with RV Solutions, Inc. when I signed. As a result, I could not have consented, nor did I consent to enter into an arbitration agreement with my employer.' Steffen also submits evidence that no affiliation between RV Solutions and T. Fetter appears in the San Diego County Fictitious Business Name Records.

Again, the burden rests with RV Solutions to prove that it is an 'affiliate' of T. Fedder, as it has superior knowledge of its own relationships. (See Jones, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 16.) A conclusory assertion from an attorney with no personal knowledge is not sufficient, particularly in the face of countervailing evidence by Steffen.

Conclusion RV Solutions has not established that it is entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement. The motion to compel arbitration is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3095774 32