Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 21PSCV00552, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00552    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: O

Defendants West Covina Nissan’s and West Covina Motor Group, LLC’s Motion to

Compel Arbitration, Strike PAGA Representative Claims, and/or in the Alternative Stay

Proceedings Pending the Outcome of Viking River is DENIED.

Background[1]  

On July 6, 2021, Plaintiff Malik Crawford, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (“Plaintiff”) filed a “Complaint for Enforcement Under the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code § 2698, et seq.,” asserting a cause of action against Defendants West Covina Nissan, West Covina Motor Group, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) and Does 1-100 for:

1.                  Violation of California Labor Code § 2698, et seq

The Final Status Conference is set for August 8, 2023. Trial is set for August 22, 2023.

Legal Standard

Under California and federal law, public policy favors arbitration as an efficient and less expensive means of resolving private disputes. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 8-9; AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333, 339.) Accordingly, whether an agreement is governed by the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”) or the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), courts resolve doubts about an arbitration agreement’s scope in favor of arbitration.  (Moncharsh, at 9; Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West Assocs. (9th Cir. 2009) 553 F.3d 1277, 1284; see also Engalla v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971-972 [“California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in favor of arbitrability and a requirement that an arbitration agreement must be enforced on the basis of state law standards that apply to contracts in general”].) “[U]nder both the FAA and California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” (Higgins v. Sup. Ct. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1247 [quotation marks and citation omitted].)

Generally, on a motion to compel arbitration, the court must grant the motion unless it finds either (1) no written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) the right to compel arbitration has been waived; (3) grounds exist for revocation of the agreement; or (4) litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219.)

The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence. (Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 761.) The burden then shifts to the opposing party to prove by a preponderance of the evidence a defense to enforcement (e.g., fraud, unconscionability, etc.) (Id.) “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.” (Engalla, supra, 15 Cal.4th at 972.)

Discussion

Defendants move the court for an order enforcing the arbitration agreement entered into by Plaintiff, compelling Plaintiff to submit his claims to binding individual arbitration, to strike representative claims and allegations pursuant to PAGA and/or, in the alternative, to stay all proceedings pending the outcome of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (“Viking River”), No. 20-1573, 2021 WL 5911481, at *1 (U.S. Dec. 15, 2021).

Request for Judicial Notice

The court declines to rule on the parties’ respective evidentiary objections as unnecessary [see

Evidentiary Objections

The court declines to rule on the parties’ respective evidentiary objections as unnecessary [see below].

Request for Stay

At the outset, Defendants’ alternative request for a stay is moot, inasmuch as the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) issued its decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) --- U.S.

---, 142 S. Ct. 1906 on June 15, 2022, subsequent to the March 23, 2022 filing of the instant motion.

Merits

Defendants seek to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to an “Employment-At-Will and Arbitration Agreement” (“Arbitration Agreement”) purportedly executed by Plaintiff on January 28, 2019 (Obied Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. A.)

Plaintiff, in turn, argues that Defendants have, inter alia, “conspicuously omit[ted] another alleged arbitration [agreement]” titled “Employee Acknowledgment and Agreement” (“EAA”) (DerOhannessian Decl., ¶ 1, Exh. A). The EAA was similarly purportedly executed by Plaintiff on January 28, 2019 and contains language pertaining to arbitration. (Id.).

In reply, Defendants acknowledge the existence of the EAA and that it was purportedly executed on the same day as the Arbitration Agreement, but contend that the Arbitration Agreement “is the operative and controlling Arbitration Agreement” by reason of its namesake and because said agreement includes the following language: “[t]his is the entire agreement between myself and the Dealership regarding dispute resolution, the length of my employment, and the reasons for termination of my employment, and this agreement supercedes any and all prior agreements regarding these issues. Oral representations or agreements made before or after my employment do not alter this Agreement.” (Obied Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. A.) The foregoing language, however, is identically stated in Paragraph 6 of the EAA. Defendants have made no showing that the Arbitration Agreement was purportedly executed by Plaintiff subsequent to Plaintiff’s purported execution of the EAA such that it supercedes the EAA and is controlling.

Accordingly, the court determines that Defendants, by failing to address the EAA whatsoever in their moving papers, have not met their burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence. The motion is denied on this basis.