Starbucks' motion to compel arbitration is granted.     Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement at the start of his employment with Starbucks.   The agreement thus exists.  Plaintiff's argument to the contrary is wrong.  Further, the agreement plainly covers Plaintiff's claims against Starbucks.   

Plaintiff's argument that the agreement is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable is at odds with California  precedent.   

Plaintiff's argument that Defendant Sarah Baker cannot invoke the arbitration agreement is mistaken. By its terms, the agreement  applies to actions against Starbucks' employees, such as Baker, not just to actions against Starbucks itself.    Baker need not have actually signed the agreement to be covered by it.  In any event, Baker is a third party beneficiary of the agreement and did not have to sign for that reason.

In light of the Court's decision to grant the motion to compel arbitration, the case is stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration.  The Court is setting a hearing on the status of the arbitration for May 7, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.