Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV13222, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV13222    Hearing Date: November 18, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: November 18, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Defendant SoCal Deliveries LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiff Felipe Chavez

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

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 June 21, 2024, Plaintiff Felipe Chavez filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendant SoCal Deliveries LLC asserting causes of action for Labor Code 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 and Applicable Law

Defendant moves to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreement executed by Plaintiff on June 16, 2022. (Decl. Abbott-Whitley, Exh. 1.) The agreement provides, “that any covered claim … shall be submitted to individual binding arbitration.” (Id.) “Covered Claims” are defined as “all past, current, and future grievances, disputes, claims, issues, or causes of action … under applicable federal, state or local laws, arising out of or relating to” Plaintiff’s “application, hiring, hours worked, services provided, and/or employment with [SoCal] or the termination thereof,” including “issues regarding benefits, bonuses, [and] wages.” (Id.) It expressly provides: “The Employee and the Company each specifically acknowledges and agrees that all claims involving minimum wages, overtime, unpaid wages, expense reimbursement, wage statements, and claims involving meal and rest breaks shall be subject to arbitration under this Agreement.” (Id.) The agreement states that it is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act.

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

Plaintiff asserts that the motion should be denied because Plaintiff was employed as an exempt transportation worker under the FAA. Section 1 of the FAA exempts “seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” (9 U.S.C. §1.) This “transportation worker” exemption applies to any class of workers that is “actively engaged in the transportation of goods across borders via the channels of foreign or interstate commerce.” (Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450, 457-458 (2022).) Courts have held that this applies to last-mile delivery drivers who transport packages originating outside the state of delivery, even if the driver does not cross state lines. (See e.g. Nieto v. Fresno Beverage Co. Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 274, 284.) Plaintiff declares that his duties included picking up packages from an Amazon warehouse in Santa Clarita and delivering them to customers in the San Fernando Valley. He presents a screenshot of a package that Plaintiff delivered that purportedly originated from Lexington, KS.

In reply, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence showing he was engaged in interstate commerce. Defendant represents that all packages delivered by Plaintiff were picked up in California and delivered locally.

The Court finds that Plaintiff falls within the transportation worker exemption. Plaintiff was a delivery driver who was actively engaged in transporting goods originating from out of state.

Defendant’s reliance on Bissonnette v. Le Page Bakeries Park St., LLC, (2024) 601 U.S. 246, is misplaced. The sole issue there was whether a transportation worker needed to work in the transportation industry to fall within the FAA exemption. The Supreme Court found that the worker did not have to work in the transportation industry. The Court reaffirmed that a transportation worker is one who is actively engaged in the transportation of goods via foreign or interstate commerce. (Bissonnette, 601 U.S. at 256.) Bissonnette does not invalidate the cases, including Nieto, finding that last-mile delivery drivers are part of the “continuous journey” of interstate commerce. (Nieto, 33 Cal.App.5th at 284.)

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is DENIED.