Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV19562, Date: 2024-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19562    Hearing Date: May 1, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing date:              May 01, 2024

Moving Parties:           Defendants Ash Hop II, Inc., Paramount 3582 Inc., Lake Forest 3531 Inc. and Dan Ashoori.

Responding Parties:    Plaintiff Evelyn Lopez

Motion to Compel Arbitration

The court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

The court GRANTS the Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. The court orders plaintiff Evelyn Lopez and Defendants Ash Hop II, Inc., Paramount 3582 Inc., Lake Forest 3531 Inc., and Dan Ashoori to arbitrate the Plaintiff’s causes of action in her First Amended Complaint. The court orders that this action be stayed until the arbitration is completed.

Background

            This employment dispute involves allegations of discrimination, retaliation, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and failure to pay wages and provide meal and rest periods. On August 16, 2023, plaintiff Evelyn Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Ash Hop II, Inc, Ash Hop III, Inc, and Dan Ashoori (“Defendants”), alleging 11 causes of action. On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint alleging the same 11 causes of action. On March 08, 2024, Defendants Ash Hop II, Inc., Paramount 3582 Inc., Lake Forest 3531 Inc., and Ashoori. filed this motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 17, 2024, and Defendants replied on April 24, 2024.

Evidentiary Objections

1. Plaintiff’s Objections #1-8 are OVERRULED because Mr. Cheng is making the statements as an administrator for Defendants’ employment and payroll practices, and he is making the statements based on his knowledge. As for objections # 2-8, the evidence is relevant because it is disputed that Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate; it’s a fact of consequence because it speaks to the issue of whether the parties must arbitrate based on an agreement, and its value outweighs the dangers of undue prejudice to the Plaintiff because its value of the testimony is high considering it proves if there is an agreement to arbitrate.
2. Defendants’ Objections #1-6 are OVERRULED because Plaintiff makes the statements based on her knowledge.

Legal Standard

Under CCP § 1281, a “written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and revocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.” A party to an arbitration agreement may seek a court order compelling the parties to arbitrate a dispute covered by the agreement. (CCP § 1281.2.) The right to arbitration depends upon contract; a petition to compel arbitration is simply a suit in equity seeking specific performance of that contract. (Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Inv. Brokerage Co. v. Hock Inv. Co. (1998) 68 Cal. App.4th 83, 88.)

When presented with a petition to compel arbitration, the trial court's first task is to determine whether the parties have in fact agreed to arbitrate the dispute. (Id. at 88.) “[A]bsent a clear agreement to submit disputes to arbitration, courts will not infer that the right to a jury trial has been waived.” (Adajar v. RWR Homes, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 563, 569, internal citations and quotations omitted.)

Because the right to arbitration depends upon contract, the party seeking arbitration bears the initial burden of proving that the parties actually agreed to arbitrate the instant dispute.  (Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 761.) If the moving party does so, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that the subject agreement is unenforceable. (Id. at 761.) The court “sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a final determination.” (Engalla v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.)

Discussion

Defendants Ash Hop I, Inc, Paramount 3582 Inc., Lake Forest 3531 Inc., and Ashoori pray for an order from the Court compelling arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims and dismiss the action with prejudice and to stay the action pending determination of the arbitration.

1.      Existence of an Arbitration Agreement

In moving for an order compelling arbitration, Defendant submits the parties Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate (“Arbitration Agreements” or “AA”), dated April 2, 2012, which contains an arbitration provision that states, in relevant part, the following:

To arbitrate any claims or controversies during or following your employment, whether or not they are in any way related to or associated with your employment or the termination of your employment with the company… The “Claims” covered by this agreement include… wrongful termination… wages or other compensation due penalties…reimbursement of expenses; discrimination or harassment, including but not limited to discrimination or harassment based on race, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic characteristics, gender expression, gender identity, or sexual orientation; retaliation; Violation of any federal, state or other governmental constitution, statue, ordinance or regulation, including but not limited to … the California Labor Code, this California Civil Code, and the California wage orders.

(Cheng Decl., Exhibits 1 & 2, § 3.)

            Plaintiff submits a declaration denying that she signed the arbitration agreements and attesting that she does not recall ever seeing or signing the AAs. (Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 2-7.). Plaintiff additionally contends that Defendants failed to meet their burden in establishing the existence of an arbitration agreement because the Defendants failed to produce any emails to or from Plaintiff relating to her alleged receipt signing of or confirmation of signing the alleged AAs. (See Opp’n p. 5-6.)

In reply, Defendants reassert their arguments and argue that Plaintiff fails to appropriately challenge the existence of the AA, contending that Plaintiff’s declaration set forth a conclusory argument that she never saw or signed either AA or any other documents during her five-year employment. (Reply p. 6.)

            The court finds Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit considering Mr. Cheng’s supplemental reply, which states notably points out that the electronic talentReef system, used by the Defendants during the onboarding process, required Plaintiff to create her own secure and unique username and password that was not shared with anyone, and throughout the entirety of her employment, Plaintiff had unfettered access to all her documents maintained in talentReef, to either read and review and also to print. (Suppl. Cheng Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6 and 9.) Meaning that Plaintiff’s electronic signature is an attributable action of Plaintiff. Both Mr. Cheng’s initial and supplemental declarations sufficiently establish the existence of an arbitration agreement between the Defendants and the Plaintiff. Cheng has personal knowledge of the procedures of how Defendants’ employee files are prepared and maintained. Cheng further establishes that newly hired employees completed their employment paperwork, which included the binding AA, and that the AA does contain a 30-day opt-out provision, which Plaintiff could have exercised. Plaintiff provides no other evidence challenging the authenticity of the signature.

            Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the Defendants provide evidence sufficient to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement. The burden now shifts to the Plaintiff to demonstrate that the subject arbitration agreement cannot be interpreted to require arbitration of the dispute or to provide evidence establishing a defense to the arbitration agreement. Here, Plaintiff does not assert any grounds for why the arbitration agreement cannot be enforced, such as unconscionability.

Thus, the court finds that the action is subject to arbitration. The court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration,

Defendants argue that this action should be dismissed, not stayed. (Mot.at 2.) Defendants request that the court stay the proceedings in the alternative. The Court does not find it appropriate to dismiss the action as doing so would be erroneous. (Muao v. Grosvenor Properties (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1093.) Accordingly, the proceedings are STAYED.  

The court orders plaintiff Evelyn Lopez and Defendants Ash Hop II, Inc., Paramount 3582 Inc., Lake Forest 3531 Inc., and Dan Ashoori to arbitrate the Plaintiff’s causes of action in her First Amended Complaint. The court orders that this action is stayed until the arbitration is completed.

            It is so ordered.

Dated: May 01, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA