Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00044902-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 29, 2024

03/01/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00044902-CU-OE-CTL HARRISON VS SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court is inclined to grant Defendant SBCS Corporation's motion to compel arbitration, for the reasons set forth below. However, it will hear from the parties regarding whether to include Plaintiff Rasheedah Harrison's PAGA claim (brought in the first amended complaint filed after Defendant filed its motion to compel) together with her individual claims, notwithstanding that Defendant has not sought to compel arbitration of the individual component of that claim.

First, the court acknowledges the gray area with respect to the relationship between Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and 1281.7. By its plain terms, section 1281.7 permits only a 'petition pursuant to Section 1281.2' to be filed in lieu of an answer to a complaint. Thus, to the extent a 'petition' to compel arbitration is materially distinct from a 'motion' to compel arbitration, a motion should not qualify as an appropriate pleading response. Defendant's argument that the word 'may' in section 1281.7 renders the section permissive does not really address the issue, as the permissive aspect is directed at the decision whether to answer the complaint. However, neither party has supported its position with legal authority that squarely addresses the issue. Under the circumstances, the court is prepared to treat Defendant's motion as a petition within the meaning of section 1281.7 and permit it to act as a responsive pleading.

Second, under 'both federal and state law, the threshold question presented by a petition to compel arbitration is whether there is an agreement to arbitrate.' (Long v. Provide Commerce, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 855, 861 (citation omitted).) 'The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, while a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.' (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842.) Here, Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiff received and electronically signed copies of both an employee handbook and a separate arbitration agreement. (ROA #12, Ramos Dec., ¶¶ 6-7, Ex. A.) The existence of the separately signed arbitration agreement separates this case from Esparza v. Sand & Sea, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 781, 783, where the only arbitration provision at issue was contained in an employee handbook, and the acknowledgement form signed by the employee did not specify the employee agreed to the arbitration provision. Here, Plaintiff signed a separate form that specifies: 'My signature below certifies that I have read, I understand and I agree to be legally bound to all of the above terms, my signature also certifies that I have been provided the opportunity to have this arbitration agreement reviewed by legal counsel of my choice.' (ROA #12, Ramos Dec., Ex. A, p. 2.) Moreover, directly above the signature space is an admonition to 'not sign until you have read the above arbitration agreement and acknowledgment.' (Ibid.) Plaintiff also does not contest the validity of her own electronic signature. Consequently, the arbitration agreement valid and enforceable.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3057759  18 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HARRISON VS SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES OF  37-2023-00044902-CU-OE-CTL Finally, the Federal Arbitration Act, and not the California Arbitration Act, controls; thus, the Gentry test is inapplicable. The agreement specifies that disputes 'shall be submitted to and determined exclusively by binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.' Moreover, Defendant has presented sufficient evidence of its engagement in interstate commerce. (ROA #12, Ramos Dec., ¶ 13.) As such, the stipulation in the arbitration agreement precluding the parties from bring claims in a representative capacity is binding and enforceable.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3057759  18