Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV26383, Date: 2025-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV26383    Hearing Date: February 21, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 21, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Defendants Simplified Driver Staffing, LLC and Ashish Wahi

Responding Party: Plaintiff Channing Sherouse

T/R:      DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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 October 10, 2024, Plaintiff Milan Channing Sherouse filed a complaint against Defendants Simplified Driver Staffing, LLC and Ashish Wahi, asserting eleven causes of action for PAGA claims, Labor Code violations and UCL 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.)

Defendants move to compel arbitration based on the employment arbitration agreement purportedly executed by Plaintiff. Defendants’ motion was filed twice: once on November 21, 2024 and once on January 24, 2025. The motions contain only a declaration and exhibits. The declaration states that there is an attached memorandum of points and authorities but neither motion includes a memorandum of points and authorities. Plaintiff objects to the motion on this ground, noting that CRC Rules 3.113 and 3.114 require a party file a memorandum of points and authorities for any motions that are not otherwise exempted from this rule. CRC Rule 3.113 states that a motion without a memorandum may be construed “as an admission that the motion... is not meritorious and cause for its denial.” The lack of memorandum also greatly inhibits Plaintiff’s ability to oppose the motion.

Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is DENIED without prejudice.