Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV10555, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV10555    Hearing Date: October 15, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 15, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Defendants The Elevance Health Companies of California and Elevance Health, Inc., joined by Specially Appearing Defendant Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company

Responding Party: Plaintiff Sara Keller

T/R:     DEFENDANTS THE ELEVANCE HEALTH COMPANIES OF CALIFORNIA AND ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANT ANTHEM’S JOINDER IS DENIED.

THE ACTION IS STAYED AS TO THE ELEVANCE DEFENDANTS.

DEFENDANTS 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 April 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants, asserting 8 causes of action for FEHA violations, retaliation, and wrongful termination.

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

Defendants move to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreements in the employment application executed by Plaintiff on June 30, 2005 and the New Associate Acknowlegment form executed by Plaintiff on July 25, 2005. (Decl. Robinson, Exh. 1-2.) The later executed agreement provides, “I understand and agree that I will be subject to the Company’s mutual arbitration policy. Thus, I agree to resolve all legal disputes with the Company through final and binding arbitration, as more fully described in the Associate Handbook and Human Resources Policy #613, Arbitration. Both the Associate Handbook and Human Resources Policy #613, Arbitration are located on the Company’s intranet site, WorkSite. I acknowledge that this arbitration policy includes claims the Company may have against me.” (Id., Exh. 2.)

Defendants have met their burden to establish an agreement to arbitrate. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to establish any defenses to enforcement.

B. Enforceability of Agreement

Plaintiff argues the agreement is unenforceable because it is procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Defendants assert that questions of enforceability are reserved for the arbitrator under the delegation clause. The enforceability of an arbitration agreement is generally determined by the court. (See Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 891; Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 771, 781.) However, parties may agree to arbitrate gateway questions of arbitrability such as the enforceability of an arbitration agreement and whether claims are covered by the arbitration agreement. (See Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63, 68-69; Aanderud, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at 891-92; Ajamian, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at 781.)  “To establish this exception, it must be shown by ‘clear and unmistakable’ evidence that the parties intended to delegate the issue to the arbitrator.”  (Ajamian, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at 781 (citing First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944).)

Here, the parties agreed that “the Arbitrator shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this policy, including but not limited to any claim that all or any part of this policy is void or voidable.” (Decl. Robinson, Exh. 4.) This is a clear and unmistakable delegation clause. Issues of arbitrability are reserved for the arbitrator.

Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The action is STAYED as to moving Defendants.

C. Defendant Anthem’s Joinder

On October 8, 2024, specially appearing Defendant Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company filed a joinder to this motion, arguing that Plaintiff should arbitrate claims against Anthem, a non-signatory, under the third-party beneficiary theory. 

The hearing on this motion is set for October 15, 2024. Anthem has raised unique substantive arguments in their joinder to which Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to respond. This is insufficient notice under CCP § 1005. The joinder is DENIED.