Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV24384, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24384    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 17, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Defendant Westlake Services, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiff Dulce De La Cruz

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION IS GRANTED.

THE ACTION IS STAYED.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On October 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants, asserting causes of action for FEHA violations.

ANALYSIS

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate a controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists….”  (CCP § 1281.2.)  The right to compel arbitration exists unless the court finds that the right has been waived by a party’s conduct, other grounds exist for revocation of the agreement, or where a pending court action arising out of the same transaction creates the possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.   (CCP § 1281.2(a)-(c).)  “The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability.”  (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)

A. Existence of Arbitration Agreement

Defendant moves to compel arbitration based on the Dispute Resolution Agreement executed by Plaintiff on January 3, 2017, and updated and acknowledged by Plaintiff on August 1, 2019. (Decl. Feldmeth, Exh. E.) The August 1, 2019 agreement provides, “The parties shall submit to binding arbitration before a neutral arbitrator all disputes and claims arising out of submission of any employment application or any and all disputes that may arise out of or already exist related to my employment or relationship with Company...” (Id.) This action arises from the parties’ employment relationship.

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that she is not bound by the August 1, 2019 DRA because she does not recall receiving or acknowledging it and Defendant has failed to establish Plaintiff’s assent. Plaintiff argues that if she is bound to arbitrate, the 2017 DRA applies.

Defendant has provided the declaration of Megan Feldmeth, the Director of Human Resources. Feldmeth declares that per the procedures of the ULTIPRO application used by Defendant to distribute online documents, Plaintiff acknowledged and accepted the August 1, 2019 DRA on September 17, 2019. (Decl. Feldmeth, Exh. F.) This is sufficient to establish Plaintiff’s assent to the agreement. The August 1, 2019 DRA applies.

Defendant has met its burden to establish the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to establish any defenses to enforcement.

B. Enforceability of Agreement

Plaintiff asserts that the 2017 DRA is procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Plaintiff makes no arguments regarding the 2019 DRA. Plaintiff has failed to establish any defenses to enforcement.

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.