Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV29733, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29733    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings

Moving Party:  Defendant Fabletics, Inc.

Resp. Party:    None

Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. The Parties are ordered to arbitrate. The proceeding is stayed until an arbitration is had or until such earlier time as the Court specifies.

The Court schedules a Status Conference re arbitration for February __, 2024.  The parties are to file a Joint Status Conference Report 5 court days prior to the status conference hearing.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

This Motion to Compel Arbitration is unopposed, yet plaintiff has not stipulated to arbitration.  The Court finds such silence to be troubling.  If plaintiff believed that the Motion should be denied, he should have filed an opposition.  If plaintiff agreed that arbitration was compelled, he should have stipulated to arbitration.  Had he done so, the court and its staff would not have had to spend the time analyzing a Motion to Compel arbitration that even the plaintiff agrees must be granted.

BACKGROUND:

On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendants Techstyleos Company, Techstyle Ventures, LLC, and Techstyle Fashion Group on causes of action regarding the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), as well as for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

On November 1, 2022, Defendant Fabletics, Inc., d.b.a. Techstyle Fashion Group (erroneously sued as Techstyleos Company, Techstyle Ventures, LLC, and Techstyle Fashion Group) filed its Answer.

On December 14, 2022, Defendant filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. Defendant concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Jessica Sanchez; (2) Declaration of Jeremy Wilson; (3) Declaration of Sabrina Beldner; (4) Declaration of Conor Dale; (5) Proposed Order; and (6) Proof of Service. 

On January 3, 2023, Defendant filed its Notice of Non-Opposition.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

“A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.)  

¿¿ 

“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 makes certain determinations].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

“If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4, rest of statute omitted for brevity.) 

“Under both federal and state law, arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable, unless they are revocable for reasons under state law that would render any contract revocable. . . . Reasons that would render any contract revocable under state law include fraud, duress, and unconscionability.” (Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 231, 239, citations omitted.) 

“The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of an arbitration agreement.¿The party opposing the petition bears the burden of establishing a defense to the agreement's enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence.¿In determining whether there is a duty to arbitrate, the trial court must, at least to some extent, examine and construe the agreement.” (Id.) 

II.        Discussion

A.      The Arbitration Agreement

On May 10, 2021 and on October 31, 2021, Plaintiff signed arbitration agreements related to his employment with Defendant. In relevant part, these agreements state:

“In the event there is any dispute between you and the Company relating to or arising out of the employment or the termination of your employment, whether such claims arise before or after the signing of this Agreement, which you and the Company are unable to resolve informally through direct discussion, regardless of the kind or type of dispute, you and the Company agree to submit all such claims or disputes to be resolved by final and binding arbitration, instead of going to court, in accordance with the procedural rules of the Federal Arbitration Act.”

(Decl. Sanchez, Exs. 1–2.)

The Court finds that there is a signed arbitration agreement between the Parties.

B.      Analysis

Defendant has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of an arbitration agreement. (Tiri, supra, at 239.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or otherwise met his burden of establishing a defense to the agreement’s enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence. (Id.)

Thus, the Court orders the Parties to arbitrate the controversy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) In addition, as Defendant has moved the Court to stay the proceeding, the Court stays the proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the Court specifies. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

III.     Conclusion

Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. The Parties are ordered to arbitrate. The proceeding is stayed until an arbitration is had or until such earlier time as the Court specifies.