Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 22STCV06855, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06855    Hearing Date: February 2, 2023    Dept: 71

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

DEPARTMENT 71

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

CECILIO BARRERA,

 

         vs.

 

LAZ PARKING CALIFORNIA LLC, et al.

 Case No.:  22STCV06855

 

 

 

Hearing Date:  February 2, 2023

 

Defendant LAZ Parking California LLC’s motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Cecilio Barrera’s claims in this action is granted.  The case is stayed pending arbitration.  The matter is set for a status conference regarding arbitration on February 2, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.  The parties are ordered to file a joint status report five court days in advance of the hearing.

 

Defendant LAZ Parking California LLC (“LAZ”) (“Defendant”) moves for an order compelling arbitration of all claims asserted by Plaintiff Cecilio Barrera  (“Barrera”) (“Plaintiff”) in this action and staying the action pending completion of arbitration.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §1281.4.)

 

Background

 

On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant action for age and disability discrimination and harassment in violation of the FEHA and wrongful termination in connection with his employment with Defendant.  Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration on September 8, 2022.  Plaintiff filed his opposition on January 23, 2023.  Plaintiff filed its reply on January 26, 2023.

 

In deciding a motion to compel arbitration, trial courts must first decide whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties, and then determine the second gateway issue of whether the claims are covered within the scope of the agreement. (See Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.)  “The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.  [Citation] In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a final determination.  [Citation] No jury trial is available for a petition to compel arbitration. [Citation]” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.) (See also Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 207 F. 3d 1126, 1130 (“The court’s role under the [FAA] is therefore limited to determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. [Citations]”).  The party opposing the petition to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.  (Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284.) 

 

A.  Arbitration Agreement

 

Defendant proved the existence of an arbitration agreement with Plaintiff.  Defendant submitted evidence that on May 11, 2016, Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement (“Agreement”) that contained a valid and enforceable arbitration clause (“Arbitration Agreement”).  (Decl. of DiPaolo ¶8, Exh. C.)  

 

Plaintiff does not dispute that he signed the Arbitration Agreement, that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) governs the Arbitration Agreement, and that Defendant has not waived its right to arbitrate this matter.

 

Plaintiff argues he is exempt from arbitration because, as a transportation worker, he is part of “class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” pursuant to FAA §1, who do not cross state lines but operate within the flow of interstate commerce and is therefore exempt from the FAA.  (Opposition at pg. 2; Rittmann v. Amazon, Inc. (9th Cir. 2020) 971 F.3d 904, 915 [delivery providers for Amazon products belong to a class of workers within exemption as the “delivery providers are a class of workers that transport packages through to the conclusion of their journeys in interstate and foreign commerce”]; Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc. (1st Cir. 2020) 966 F.3d 10, 13 [same]; Muller v. Roy Miller Freight Lines, LLC (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 1056, 1065, 1068 [truck driver is a “transportation worker”]; Nieto v. Fresno Beverage Co., Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 274, 278, rev. denied (July 10, 2019)[delivery truck driver was a transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce, thus within the § 1 exemption]; see also Singh v. Uber Techs. Inc. (3d Cir. 2019) 939 F.3d 210, 221-222, 226 [remanding to the district court and holding “the residual clause of § 1 of the FAA may operate to exclude from FAA coverage the contracts of employment of all classes of transportation workers, so long as they are engaged in interstate commerce, or in work so closely related thereto as to be in practical effect part of it”].)

 

The Supreme Court has confined the “class of workers” language to exempt only “contracts of employment of transportation workers.”  (Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams (2001) 532 U.S. 105, 119.)  Singh v. Uber Techs. Inc. cited by Plaintiff merely holds § 1 may operate to exclude from the FAA all classes of “transportation workers.” Indeed, there is a circuit split concerning local delivery drivers (“last-mile drivers”) who deliver goods locally were engaged in the movement of interstate commerce. (See Lopez v. Cintas Corporation (5th Cir. 2022) 47 F. 5th 428, 432 [ “local delivery drivers are not so “engaged” in “interstate commerce” as § 1 contemplates.”])

 

Plaintiff’s argument analogizing his position to that of delivery drivers is unavailing.  Unlike the delivery drivers in Rittman, Waithaka, Muller, and Nieto, Plaintiff is a shuttle driver transporting patients within Los Angeles County for medical treatment within Los Angeles County.  Plaintiff’s position is more analogous to the Uber driver in Singh, a class of workers the Ninth Circuit has determined is not subject to FAA’s §1 exemption in Capriole v. Uber Techs., Inc. (Capriole v. Uber Techs., Inc. (9th Cir. 2021) 7 F.4th 854, 863; see also Rogers v. Lyft, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2020) 452 F.Supp.3d 904, 917, aff’d, No. 20-15689, 2022 WL 474166 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2022) [holding that Lyft drivers were not transportation workers exempted from §1].)

 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant proved the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties that is enforceable by Defendant. 

 

B. Covered Claims

 

Plaintiff does not dispute that his claims against Defendant would be covered by the Arbitration Agreement.  (See Opposition.)  In fact, the Arbitration Agreement expressly states that the Agreement includes all disputes involving the hiring, termination, terms of employment, wages or any other disputes arising out of the employment relationship with the Company.  (Decl. of DiPaolo, Exh. C.)  Based on the foregoing, Defendant met its burden of establishing the Agreement covers the causes of action asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint.

 

  1. Conclusion

     

    Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is granted. The case is stayed pending arbitration.

     

    Dated:  February _____, 2023

                                                                                                                           

    Hon. Monica Bachner

    Judge of the Superior Court