Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV40936, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 22STCV40936    Hearing Date: July 11, 2023    Dept: 55

DARGAHI v. LLOYDS MANUFACTURING SERVICES, INC.,          22STCV40936

Hearing Date:  7/11/23,  Dept. 55.

#11:   MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION.

 

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

 

MP:  Defendant LLOYDS MANUFACTURING SERVICES, INC.;  joinder of Defendant CASEY DEAN LOYD.

RP:  Plaintiff

 

 

Summary

 

On 12/29/22, Plaintiff SANAZ DARGAHI filed a Complaint.

On 2/14/23, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging claims for failure to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, provide meal and rest breaks, related wage and hour claims, sexual harassment, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, assault and battery, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, PAGA claims, among others.

 

 

MP Positions

 

Moving and joining parties requests an order compelling arbitration of Plaintiff’s complaint, and staying this action, on grounds including the following:

·         Plaintiff entered into a written arbitration agreement that covers the disputes at issue in the whole complaint as against two of three of the defendants.

·         While plaintiff indicated a willingness to stipulate to arbitration, plaintiff refused to stay the action pending arbitration as to the third defendant.

·         Assuming, arguendo, severable issues exist, the court should decline to exercise its discretion to lift portions of the stay as it would cause the parties to concurrently litigate the arbitrable and non-arbitrable issues which would be inefficient and may waste judicial resources.

 

RP Positions

 

Plaintiff advocates denying, for reasons including the following:

·         Plaintiff already agreed with the moving Defendant to submit her individual claims against it, to arbitration.

·         Plaintiff is willing to submit her arbitrable claims against Defendant Casey Loyd to arbitration while the non-arbitrable claims against Defendant are stayed.

·         Plaintiff opposes the motion and joinder as to the request for staying Plaintiff’s claims against co-Defendant Monica Fita. 

·         The facts listed in the two causes of action against Defendant Fita about her texts of threats sent to Plaintiffs, are independent of the wrongdoings of  moving Defendant.  Also, the claims against Fita are not subject to arbitration since Fita is not a party to any arbitration agreement related to the Plaintiff and she is not legally related to moving Defendant.

·         Plaintiff is not required to stipulate to stay the action pending arbitration as to the third defendant.

 

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

The motion and joinder are granted.

Plaintiff and the moving and joining defendants shall arbitrate the controversies between them, including the entire First Amended Complaint, in accordance with their agreement to arbitrate. 

This entire case is stayed until such arbitration has been completed.

The Court has discretion to stay the action as to parties not subject to arbitration. Here, the Court finds a risk of conflicting decisions, if this case were allowed to proceed as to one Defendant while two defendants go to arbitration, where the operative pleading attributes some conduct and claims to more than one defendant   (see, e.g.,  First Amended Complaint, ¶ 47  (“She was emotionally tortured by both individual Defendants Casey Dean Loyd and Monica Fita.”)).  Additionally, the Nineteenth and Twentieth Causes of Action are alleged against all defendants, and incorporate by reference the allegations of the other claims subject to arbitration, which further shows some common overlap of theories against defendants.

 “[W]hen there is a severance of arbitrable from inarbitrable claims, the trial court has the discretion to stay proceedings on the inarbitrable claims pending resolution of the arbitration.”  Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 303, 320.  Where a court has ordered arbitration, it shall stay the pending action, until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate, or another earlier time, and the stay may be with respect to an issue that is severable.  CCP §1281.4;  Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 303, 320;  Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 188, 192;  Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.  (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1152, 1154 n. 12. 

It is also correct that Plaintiff did not have any obligation to stipulate to staying this action as to the third party.  “‘A stipulation is an agreement between counsel with respect to business before a court….’”  Harris v. Spinali Auto Sales, Inc. (1966) 240 Cal. App. 2d 447, 452.  But the Court nevertheless orders staying, in its discretion.