Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: Bishara v. Altamed Health Services, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Management Conference

The CMC is vacated.

Arbitration Motion

Defendant AltaMed Health Services Corp.’s motion to compel arbitration is granted.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

Plaintiff Miriam Bishara shall submit her claims against defendant to binding arbitration pursuant to their agreement.

This action is stayed pending completion of arbitration.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.) 

The court sets a status conference re binding arbitration for 7/27/23 at 2 pm.

Defendant met its burden to show a written arbitration agreement exists that covers plaintiff’s claims.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; see also Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [elements]; see also Brown decl. ¶¶ 11 & Exs. A-B.)

Plaintiff has not shown grounds for revoking the agreement.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2(b).)

Plaintiff has shown some the agreement suffers from some procedural unconscionability as an adhesion contract and condition of employment.  (See Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114-115; see also Alvarez v. AltaMed Health Services Corporation (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 572, 590 AltaMed’s arbitration agreement has “limited procedural unconscionability”].)

But plaintiff has not shown sufficient substantive unconscionability to render the agreement unenforceable.  (See Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th 83 at p. 114 [sliding scale].)  The agreement is not one-sided:  it binds defendant, which waives its right to sue and agrees that any claim “the Company many have against” plaintiff will be resolved in arbitration.  (See Brown decl. Ex. B ¶ 2.)

While plaintiff does not raise the issue, the court on its own motion severs paragraph 5 concerning appellate arbitral review, as defendant’s cited case held that provision was unconscionable and severable.  (See Alvarez, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at pp. 592-596.)

Plaintiff has not met her “heavy burden” to show defendant waived the right to compel arbitration.  (Saint Agnes Med. Ctr. v. PacificCare of Cal. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1187, 1195; accord Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2(a).)  Plaintiff has not shown defendant’s limited litigation conduct – basically, just seeking terminating sanctions at the outset – is so inconsistent with arbitration or prejudicial to warrant waiver.  (See Saint Agnes, at p. 1196.)

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted as to the published Alvarez decision but denied as to the two unpublished decisions as irrelevant.

Defendant shall give notice.