Judge: Mike Camacho, Case: 23SMCV00794, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00794    Hearing Date: July 21, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Tehrani v. Culver City Motor Cars, Inc. et al., Case No. 23SMCV00794

Hearing Date July 21, 2023

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration

Plaintiff Tehrani alleges wrongful termination. Defendants move to compel arbitration pursuant to arbitration agreements signed in November 2010 and also in November 2020.

On June 30, 2023 the court’s tentative ruling was to grant as to all causes of action except the ninth, which would be stayed. The court allowed the parties to file additional briefing regarding applicability of Alberto v. Cambrian Homecare (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 482, 486.

In Alberto, the court held an arbitration agreement and confidentiality agreement should be

read together since both were conditions of plaintiff’s hiring and both governed disputes related to plaintiff’s employment. The Alberto court held the confidentiality agreement was unconscionable for lack of mutuality, since it allowed the employer to obtain an immediate injunction without bond if plaintiff breached. Id. at 492. The court found terms in the confidentiality agreement prohibiting discussion of wages and requiring waiver of PAGA claims were also unconscionable. Id. 493-494. The court found the trial court’s denial of arbitration was appropriate because the agreement contained three separate unconscionable terms so was permeated with unconscionability. Id. at 496.  

Here, as in Alberto, plaintiff’s Employee Confidential Information Agreement contains a provision granting defendant the right to obtain an injunction without bond. Additionally, plaintiff argues the agreement’s prohibition on disclosing “business information” is similar to the Alberto agreement’s unconscionable prohibition on discussing salary information.

Defendant argues the two agreements were not signed contemporaneously, so should not be read together, but admits the agreements were signed within three days of one another. Both signed at approximately the time plaintiff was hired, so must be read in conjunction.

Plaintiff only identifies one unconscionable term—allowing defendant to obtain an injunction without bond. The term prohibiting disclosure of “business information” is not similar to the unconscionable term in Alberto because it does not explicitly prohibit plaintiff from discussing his salary.

The Alberto agreement was permeated with unconscionability because it contained multiple unconscionable terms. There is only one such term here; that term is severable, and the arbitration agreement is otherwise enforceable.

GRANTED as to all causes of action except the claim for failure to pay wages, which is STAYED pending arbitration.