Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 21STCV31914, Date: 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31914    Hearing Date: October 10, 2022    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Chartwell Staffing Services Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Florinda Villatoro Arias’s claims in this action is continued to 10/28/22 at 9:00 a.m.

Defendant Chartwell Staffing Services Inc. (“Chartwell”) (“Defendant”) moves for an order compelling arbitration of all claims asserted by Plaintiff Florinda Villatoro Arias (“Villatoro Arias”) (“Plaintiff”) and dismissing Plaintiff’s claims or alternatively staying the action pending completion of arbitration.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; 9 U.S.C. §§1 et seq.; C.C.P. §1281.4.) 

Background

On August 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant action for employment disability discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) against Chartwell and Jaemar, Inc. (“Jaemar”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in connection with Defendant’s August 15, 2020, alleged termination of Plaintiff’s employment in discrimination of Plaintiff’s disabilities, including a shoulder injury and COVID, and in retaliation for Plaintiff’s engagement in protected activities, including Plaintiff’s complaints about health and safety issues in the workplace related to the amount of chemicals used around employees and Defendants ignoring COVID safety protocols.  (Complaint ¶¶16-19.)  Defendant filed the instant motion on March 10, 2022.  Jaemar filed a notice of non-opposition on September 27, 2022.  Plaintiff filed her opposition on September 28, 2022, which was not timely filed.  C.R.C., Rule 3.1300(d).)  The Court in its discretion will consider the Opposition.  Defendant filed its reply on October 3, 2022. 

Defendants attached a copy of the purported arbitration agreement signed by Plaintiff to the Motion.  (Dec. of Gonzalez, Exh. A.)  The agreement was in Spanish.  Defendants also attached a copy of the “more recent English version of Chartwell's arbitration agreement contains the same substantive terms and conditions as Exhibit A. The English version of the Arbitration Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B.” (Decl. of Gonzalez ¶¶7, 8, Exhs. A, B.)  However, as Defendant failed to provide an accurate translation of the agreement, the Court is unable to evaluate the substantive unconscionability of the agreement.   (Evid. Code §§ 750, 751(c), 753(a).) This Motion is continued to October 28, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.  Defendants are ordered to submit an interpretation by a court-certified interpreter no later than five court days in advance.  Failure to timely submit the court-certified interpretation will result in a denial of the motion.

Dated:  October _____, 2022

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court