Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: BC675696, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC675696    Hearing Date: August 5, 2022    Dept: 55

VALADEZ v. IN-N-OUT BURGERS                                            BC675696

Hearing Date:  8/5/22,  Dept. 55

#4:  PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD.

 

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

 

MP:  Defendants/Petitioners

RP:  

 

Summary

 

On 9/14/17, three plaintiffs filed a Complaint, including allegations that a plaintiff was sexually harassed by an assistant supervisor and coworkers, and experienced adverse employment actions after complaining.

The causes of action are:

1. SEX DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA

2. NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA

3, SEXUAL HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

4. RETALIATION/PROTECTED ACTIVITY

5. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT

6. AIDING AND ABETTING

7. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL, GOV. CODE § 12940(H)

8. VIOLATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, BUS, & PROF. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.

 

On 6/4/18, the Court granted a Motion to Compel Arbitration, as to all three plaintiffs in this case.

On 9/2/21, the Court entered an order that case numbers BC675696 and 21STCV17412 are deemed related.

On 1/12/22, the Court confirmed an arbitration award, based on a petition addressing Plaintiff/Respondent ERIKA VALADEZ, including based on the arbitration award finding a bar of the Statute of Limitations.

On 1/12/22, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal as to the 1/12/22 order confirming the award as to ERIKA VALADEZ.

On 6/24/22, defendants filed a petition to confirm an arbitration award, as to Plaintiff/Respondent MARIA ESTELA ROSAS.

 

 

MP Positions

 

Moving parties request the Court to confirm the arbitration award as to Respondent MARIA ESTELA ROSAS, on bases including the following:

·         A JAMS arbitration award was made, awarding nothing to either side, on August 2, 2021.

·         The Arbitrator, after reviewing all submissions, dismissed Claimant’s case, finding that her case was barred by statutes of limitations, but that the issue was complicated and not frivolously disputed.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

The petition hearing is continued to 4/10/23 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 55.

It appears that overlapping issues may be involved as to the instant petition, and the prior, similar petition of a co-plaintiff, and the resultant appeal.

Even where there is no automatic stay pending appeal, judges can exercise discretion to continue or stay proceedings, until an appeal is decided.  Reed v. Superior Court (2001) 92 Cal. App. 4th 448, 455.

Otherwise, the unopposed petition might be granted.

Unless a petition or response seeking to correct or vacate an arbitration award was filed properly based upon valid grounds, or the proceeding is dismissed, courts are required to enter judgment in conformity with the award.  Valsan Partners Ltd. Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818.