Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV02091, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV02091 Hearing Date: April 9, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 4/9/24
Case #23CHCV02091
(1) MOTION TO
COMPEL ARBITRATION
AND
(2) MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
Motion to Compel Arbitration filed on 10/19/23.
Motion for Sanctions filed on 11/13/23.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Christopher Go
NOTICE: ok
RELIEF REQUESTED:
(1) An order compelling arbitration
before ADR Services, Inc. of all claims asserted in the Complaint brought by
Plaintiff Christopher Go and staying this matter until arbitration has been conducted
in accordance with the Order to Arbitrate; and
(2) An order imposing monetary
sanctions in the amount of $8,530.00 against Plaintiff Christopher Go and his
counsel pursuant to CCP 128.7.
RULING: The motion to compel arbitration and stay
this action is granted. The motion for
sanctions is denied.
SUMMARY OF ACTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of the termination of Plaintiff
Christopher Go’s (Plaintiff) employment as a nurse practitioner with Defendant
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (Defendant). On 7/14/23, Plaintiff filed this action
against Defendant for: (1) Breach of Contract,
(2) Indemnification and (3) Wrongful Termination.
Throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant,
Plaintiff was a member of the bargaining unit represented by the California
Nurses Association (Union). (Puelo Decl.
¶5, Ex.B). As such, the terms and
conditions of Plaintiff’s employment were governed by the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) between Defendant and the Union. Id.
Pursuant to the CBA, members must submit all claims arising from their
employment or termination of employment to final and binding arbitration. (See Puelo
Decl. ¶2, Ex.A, Article 32, Section G).
On 8/30/23, Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiff’s
counsel to notify counsel that Plaintiff’s claims were subject to the
arbitration agreement in the CBA.
(Abrahms Decl. ¶2). On 9/5/23,
Defendant’s counsel followed-up with an email which included the CBA containing
the arbitration agreement and requested that Plaintiff dismiss this action
because all of the claims were subject to arbitration. (Abrahms Decl. ¶3, Ex.A). That same day, Plaintiff’s counsel informed
Defendant’s counsel that he disagreed with Defendant’s position. (Id. ¶4, Ex.B). Despite further efforts to convince
Plaintiff’s counsel that the claims in this action were required to resolved
through arbitration, Plaintiff refused to dismiss this action and submit his
claims to arbitration. (Id.
¶¶5-6, 8-11, Ex.C-F).
Therefore, on 10/19/23, Defendant filed and served the
instant motion for an order compelling arbitration before ADR Services, Inc. of
all claims asserted in the Complaint brought by Plaintiff and staying this matter until arbitration has
been conducted in accordance with the Order to Arbitrate. On 10/19/23, Defendant also served a motion
for an order imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $8,530.00 against
Plaintiff and his counsel pursuant to CCP 128.7. The motion for sanctions was not filed until
11/13/23 which complies with the “safe-harbor” provision set forth in CCP
128.7(c)(1).
On 3/21/24, Plaintiff filed and served a combined
opposition to the motion to compel arbitration and the motion for
sanctions. On 4/2/24, Defendant filed
and served separate replies regarding the motion to compel arbitration and
motion for sanctions.
ANALYSIS
Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted only
as to the existence of the rulings in the other cases. While the Court may take judicial notice of
the existence of another superior court department’s ruling on a similar motion
in a different case, such rulings are not binding precedent on this court.
Arbitration
CCP 1281.2 provides in relevant part:
“On petition of a party to an
arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to
arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the
agreement refuses to arbitrate that 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, unless it determines that:
(a) The right to compel arbitration
has been waived by the petitioner; or
(b) Grounds exist for rescission of the agreement.”
Additionally, California public policy “favors
arbitration provisions in collective bargaining agreements, and recognizes the
important part that they play in helping to promote industrial
stabilization.” Posner (1961) 56
C2d 169, 180; Cortez (2017) 15 CA5th 1, 11-12.
The validity of an arbitration provision in a collective
bargaining agreement is analyzed under the “clear and unmistakable”
standard. 14 Penn Plaza, LLC
(2009) 556 U.S. 247, 274; Wright (1998) 525 U.S. 70, 80; Vasserman
(2017) 8 CA5th 236, 245; Mendez (2013) 220 CA4th 534, 544-545. A collective bargaining agreement meets this
standard if it clearly and unmistakably states the employee must pursue all
claims arising out of their employment through final and binding arbitration. Id.
Here, the CBA clearly states that Plaintiff must submit
all employment related claims, including claims related to employment
termination to arbitration. (Puelo Decl.
¶2, Ex.A, Article 32, Section G). All of
the claims in Plaintiff’s complaint relate to Plaintiff’s employment at
Defendant and conduct committed by Defendant’s agents during the course and
scope of their employment. As such,
Plaintiff’s claims fall within the clear and unmistakable arbitration
provision. See 24 Hour
Fitness, Inc. (1998) 66 CA4th 1199, 1210; 14 Penn Plaza, supra
at 265-271.
Plaintiff’s reliance on Lane (1989) 212 CA3d 164
for the proposition that Plaintiff can avoid the arbitration provision because
the Union refused to represent him in this action is misplaced. Lane involved claims by a union member
against the union. Plaintiff’s citation
to Lane merely establishes that that unions owe their bargaining members
a duty to act fairly, honestly and in good faith. Contrary to the assertion in the opposition,
Plaintiff has not established that the Union’s refusal to represent Plaintiff
in this employment dispute with Defendant renders the arbitration clause in the
CBA void as to Plaintiff.
Even if the validity of the arbitration provision did not
fall under and meet the clear and unmistakable standard set forth above,
Plaintiff has failed to establish that the arbitration provision is
substantively and procedurally unconscionable as is his burden. See Sanchez (2015) 61 C4th 899,
911.
Plaintiff’s contention that the arbitration provision is substantively
unconscionable because it fails to set forth the process for the selection of
an arbitrator, fails to set forth the process for discovery in arbitration and
subjects Plaintiff to “exuberant fees of arbitration” is without merit.
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the arbitration
provision provides a procedure for the selection of an arbitrator pursuant to
the ADR Service Arbitration Rules which are similar to the process provided by
the American Arbitration Association which have been found to be compliant with
the arbitrator neutrality requirement. See
Craig (2000) 84 CA4th 416, 419, 423.
With regard to discovery, the arbitration provision provides
that “the arbitrator shall order and permit such discovery, by way of
deposition, interrogatory, document production or otherwise. In recognition that some claims and issues may
be more complex than others, the arbitrator shall ensure that the parties are
entitled to discovery necessary to fairly, adequately and sufficiently
arbitrate the issues in dispute, consistent with the expedited nature of
arbitration.” (Puelo
Decl. ¶2, Ex.A, Article 32, Section G.1.(g)).
The arbitration provision also provides that an arbitration will be
conducted pursuant to the ADR Services Arbitration Rules. The ADR Rules provide that “with respect to
arbitration of employment claims, the parties are entitled to discovery
sufficient to adequately arbitrate their claims, including access to essential
documents and witnesses, as determined by the arbitrator.” (See ADR Rule No. 21). The ADR Rules also provide that the arbitrator
can order “such discovery, by way of deposition, interrogatory, document
production, or otherwise, as the arbitrator considers necessary to a full and
fair exploration of the issues in dispute, consistent with the expedited nature
of arbitration.” Id.
Further, the ADR Rules provide the same discovery methods
as any court of justice and have been approved by federal and California courts
as being fair and equitable. See Lagatree
(2000) 74 CA4th 1105, 1130, fn.18. Also,
because the arbitration provision incorporates the ADR Rules by reference, it necessarily
provides for adequate discovery in any arbitration. It has been held that by agreeing to
arbitrate statutory claims, the employer had already impliedly consented to
discovery of a type that allows a plaintiff to vindicate his claims. See Armendariz (2000) 24 C4th
83, 106.
Plaintiff’s argument that submitting his claims to
arbitration would subject him to the “exuberant fees of arbitration” is also
without merit. The arbitration provision
provides that “the Hospital shall pay all administrative costs and fees,
including the arbitrator’s costs and fees and shall pay a Nurse’s attorney’s
fees when required to by law; otherwise all parties shall pay their own
expenses, including attorney’s fees.” (Puelo
Decl. ¶2, Ex.A, Article 32, Section G.3).
As such, the arbitration provision complies with the law with regard to
fees and costs. See Armendariz,
supra at 110-111.
Similarly, the arbitration provision is not procedurally
unconscionable. Procedural
unconscionability refers to “oppression” or “surprise” due to unequal
bargaining power that results in no real negotiation and an absence of
meaningful choice. 24 Hour Fitness,
Inc., supra at 1213; CCP 1670.5.
Employers may present fair arbitration agreements to employees as a
condition of employment. Lagatree,
supra at 1127.
The arbitration provision was negotiated on Plaintiff’s
behalf by Plaintiff’s collective bargaining representative, the Union. See 14 Penn Plaza, supra
at 255-257. After such negotiations,
Plaintiff and the other bargaining unit members voted to ratify the contract
and the arbitration provision.
Because all of Plaintiff’s claims in this action are
subject to arbitration, this action should be stayed pending the completion of
the arbitration. CCP 1281.4.
Sanctions
CCP 128.7(b) provides:
“By presenting to the court,
whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, a pleading,
petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper, an attorney or
unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge,
information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances, all of the following conditions are met:
(2)
The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or
reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.
(3) The allegations and other
factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified,
are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
further investigation or discovery.
(4) The denials of factual
contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified,
are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.”
CCP 128.7(c) provides, in
relevant part:
“If, after notice and a reasonable
opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been
violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an
appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have
violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. In determining
what sanctions, if any, should be ordered, the court shall consider whether a
party seeking sanctions has exercised due diligence.
(1) A motion for sanctions under
this section shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall
describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). Notice of
motion shall be served as provided in Section
1010, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within
21 days after service of the motion, or any other period as the court may
prescribe, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or
denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may
award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and
attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent
exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for
violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.”
Defendant contends that
sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are warranted for violation
of CCP 128.7(b)(1) and (2). Defendant has failed to establish that Plaintiff’s
filing and/or maintaining this action was done for an improper purpose and/or
that the claims and other legal contentions are not supported by existing law
or a nonfrivolous argument for the extension or modification of existing
law.
In support of the request for
sanctions, Defendant relies, in part, on several rulings from other departments
in the Los Angeles Superior Court which have no precedential value. The Court finds that Plaintiff and his
counsel were entitled to file this action, refuse to dismiss this action upon
Defendant’s request and to argue their position in opposition to the motion to
compel arbitration without being subject to the imposition of sanctions despite
the fact that Plaintiff did not prevail.
CONCLUSION
(1) The request for an order compelling arbitration
before ADR Services, Inc. of all claims asserted in the Complaint brought by
Plaintiff Christopher Go and staying this matter until arbitration has been
accordance with the Order to Arbitrate is granted.
(2) The request for an order imposing monetary sanctions
in the amount of $8,530.00 against Plaintiff Christopher Go and his counsel
pursuant to CCP 128.7 is denied.