Judge Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case Number: 37-2023-00044527-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2023-00044527-CU-OE-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 09:00:00 AM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00044527-CU-OE-CTL BALLINA VS ALEXANDRA SERVICES INC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 05/17/2024

Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

A. As an initial matter, the court notes that defendants' memorandum of points and authorities consists of 18 pages of text. This exceeds the page limitations set forth in CRC 3.1113(d). Nevertheless, the court, in its discretion, has considered the entire opening brief. CRC 3.1113(g), 3.1300(d). In the future, defense must comply with the page limitations or, if necessary, seek relief to file a longer memorandum 'at least 24 hours before the memorandum is due' pursuant to CRC 3.1113(e).

B. Turning to the merits, the court finds that the Federal Arbitration Act ('FAA') applies. Section 1 of the FAA exempts from the statute's ambit 'contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.' 9 U.S.C. � 1. The United States Supreme Court has held that 'any class of workers directly involved in transporting goods across state or international borders falls within � 1's exemption.' Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon (2022) 596 U.S.

450, 457. The party opposing the motion to compel arbitration bears the burden of establishing that the exemption applies. Betancourt v. Transportation Brokerage Specialists, Inc. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 552, 559.

Here, plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that he falls within a 'class of workers' engaged in interstate commerce. There is no evidence regarding his job description or how his work was 'directly involved' in the interstate flow of goods. The fact that his employer, defendant Alexandra Services, may be engaged in interstate commerce is not sufficient to invoke the exemption. See Southwest Airlines, 596 U.S. at 455-56 (explaining that Section 1 exempts classes of workers based on their conduct, not their employer's).

C. 'The party seeking to compel arbitration has the burden of proving the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance any fact necessary to its defense.' Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1157.

In this case, defendants have established the existence of a written agreement to utilize binding arbitration for 'all disputes' arising out of plaintiff's employment and to do so on an individual basis.

(Habib Decl., Ex. A.) Without a declaration challenging the authenticity of plaintiff's signature, the court overrules plaintiff's evidentiary objections to the Habib declaration (ROA 27). See Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165-66; see also Condee v. Longwood Management Corp.

(2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218 ('For purposes of a petition to compel arbitration, it is not necessary to Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3106639 13 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: BALLINA VS ALEXANDRA SERVICES INC [E-FILE] 37-2023-00044527-CU-OE-CTL follow the normal procedures of document authentication.').

Moreover, 'when a plaintiff alleges a defendant acted as an agent of a party to an arbitration agreement, the defendant may enforce the agreement even though the defendant is not a party thereto.' Thomas v. Westlake (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 605, 614. Such is the case here. The complaint alleges that all three defendants were plaintiff's joint employers and were acting as agents of one another. (Complaint at � 7).

The complaint also refers to defendants collectively as 'defendants' without any distinction and alleges identical claims and conduct regarding unlawful and improper acts. These allegations are sufficient to allow defendants Alexandra Investments and Nashwan Habib to enforce the arbitration agreement even though they are not parties to it. See Garcia v. Pexco, LLC (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 782, 788 ('[S]ince the operative complaint alleged the two defendants were joint employers fulfilling the same role, the allegations were sufficient to support the agency exception.'); see also See Dryer v. Los Angeles Rams (1985) 40 Cal.3d 406, 418 ('If, as the complaint alleges, the individual defendants, though not signatories, were acting as agents for the Rams, then they are entitled to the benefit of the arbitration provisions.').

In sum, the court finds that defendants have carried their initial burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. The burden shifts to plaintiff to show that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable. Plaintiff, however, has not raised any defenses to the agreement's enforcement.

D. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis as he agreed to do when he was hired. The class claims are hereby dismissed. (See Habib Decl., Ex. A at p. 2.) Plaintiff's nonindividual PAGA claims are ordered stayed while the arbitration of plaintiff's individual claims is conducted. See Code Civ. Proc. � 1281.4; see also Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1123. The CMC set for next month (ROA 21) is vacated. An arbitration status conference will be held on June 6, 2025 at 11:30 a.m. in Dept. 72.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3106639 13