Judge: Michael D. Washington, Case: 37-2023-00037042-CU-WT-NC, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 02, 2024

05/03/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael D Washington

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00037042-CU-WT-NC FERNANDEZ VS ALL ONE GOD FAITH, INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 03/19/2024

The Motion to Compel Arbitration and Request Stay of Litigation brought by defendant All One God Faith Inc. (the Employer) is GRANTED. The case is ORDERED STAYED. The Employer is directed to submit a proposed order, which will be reviewed, modified if necessary, and executed.

This matter is set for Status Review on Friday, May 9, 2025 at 11:15 a.m. in Department N-31. Both parties shall file Status Reports five court days prior to the hearing apprising the Court of the status of the arbitration proceedings and whether this case should be dismissed or should remain stayed pending the resolution of arbitration.

Request for Judicial Notice The Request for Judicial Notice brought by the Employer is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code § 451, et seq.

Merits of Motion This is an employment discrimination lawsuit, among other things. The Employer is moving to compel the employee, plaintiff Luisa Fernandez (Plaintiff), to arbitrate her claims. It is undisputed that there is an arbitration agreement in place between the two parties, but Plaintiff contends that said agreement is unconscionable because: --'there is no mention anywhere in the agreement of a meaningful mechanism for post-arbitration judicial review...' --'the agreement also forces Plaintiff to 'waiv[e] the right to appeal the arbitrator's ruling...' --the agreement 'bars representative or class claims in violation of California law.' The Employer concedes in the briefing that judicial review is implied in the contract. As such, by prevailing on the instant motion, the Employer will be barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel from arguing that the arbitration agreement precludes judicial review. As such, this source of argued unconscionability lacks merit.

As to the right to appeal, the waiver is mutual and appears to be designed to keep arbitration a quick and efficient remedy for dispute resolution. It does not appear to be unconscionable.

As to barring representative actions, significant litigation has taken place in recent years on the issue of Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3102954 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  FERNANDEZ VS ALL ONE GOD FAITH, INC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00037042-CU-WT-NC whether precluding class actions, precluding representative actions under the Private Attorney General Act, and/or precluding individual parts of such claims but not class parts of such claims is unconscionable. See Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348; see also Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639; see also Nickson v. Shemran, Inc. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 121, 126. The instant case does not actually involve any class action or representative action claims. As such, even if said clause was unconscionable, it could be severed out in this case and the remaining dispute could still be sent to arbitration pursuant to the agreement of the parties.

Finally, the Court notes some argument that the arbitration agreement was provided to Plaintiff in English even though she spoke both Spanish and English.

Failure to provide translation to non-English speaking employees: An arbitration agreement may be procedurally unconscionable if only portions of it are translated into a different language for employees who cannot read English. (Chin, et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation (The Rutter Group, 2024) ¶ 18:629.7, citing Carmona v. Lincoln Millennium Car Wash, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 74, 85.) However, evidence provided by the Employer indicates: conducted the meeting in Spanish and carefully explained all onboarding documents to Ms. Fernandez, including the arbitration agreement... gave Ms. Fernandez an explanation of each paragraph in the arbitration agreement, its contents, and its effect...gave her an opportunity to independently review, ask questions about the document, and the explanation [the HR representative] provided... (ROA 20.) As such, the language of the arbitration agreement does not appear to be unconscionable.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3102954