Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCP03663, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP03663    Hearing Date: January 22, 2025    Dept: 34

Petitioner United Government Security Officers of America and its Local 351’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

Background

            On November 12, 2024, Petitioner United Government Security Officers of America and its Local 351 (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration against Respondent American Eagle Protective Services Inc. (“Respondent”) arising from the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement.

            On November 13, 2024, Petitioner filed this Motion to Compel Arbitration. No opposition has been filed.

            On December 11, 2024, the court granted Petitioner’s Amendment to its Complaint correcting Respondent’s name to AEPS Corporation.

            On January 10, 2025, Respondent filed an answer.

Legal Standard

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for rescission of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subds. (a) and (b).)

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.) (Ibid.) “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 v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.)

“If a court of competent jurisdiction. . . has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4).

Discussion

            Prior to September 2021, Respondent secured a federal contract to provide security officers at the Federal Aviation Administration facility in Palmdale, California. (Petition, ¶ 4.) Petitioner and Respondent then entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) which controls the employment of security officers employed by Respondent who belong to Petitioner’s union. (Ibid.)  The CBA had a contract term of September 30, 2021, through September 29, 2024. (Ibid.) In January 2022, Respondent terminated the employment of Christopher Dabbs (“Dabbs”), a bargaining unit security officer in the Palmdale facility. (Id., ¶ 7.) Petitioner filed a timely grievance challenging Dabbs discharge as it was in violation of the CBA. (Ibid.) As the grievance went unresolved, Petitioner submitted this matter to arbitration with an arbitration hearing set for August 2, 2022. (Id., ¶¶ 8-9.) The parties had reached a potential settlement which included Respondent reinstating Dabbs to his position. (Ibid.) The arbitration hearing was then cancelled. (Ibid.) Nevertheless, the settlement was not finalized and Petitioner requested to reschedule the arbitration hearing. (Id., ¶¶ 10-12.) A hearing was set for May 29, 2024. (Ibid.) On May 16, 2024, the arbitrator informed the parties that he was cancelling the arbitration and resigning from the case. (Id., ¶ 13.)

1.     Existence of a Valid Agreement  

Petitioner moves to compel arbitration pursuant to the CBA with Respondent which includes a grievance and arbitration procedure that applies to all disputes that arise “during the term of this Agreement concerning the application, meaning or interpretation of an express provision of this Agreement or the employment relationship between the Company and employee[.]” (Motion, at p. 2.; Petition, Exh. A, Article 13.1.) Additionally, the CBA states that “[o]nly grievances which involve an alleged violation by the Company of a provision in this Agreement and which are processed in the manner and within the time limits herein provided shall be subject to arbitration.” (Petition, Exh. A, Article 13.1.)

            As a preliminary matter, a moving party must provide prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate. “With respect to the moving party's burden to provide evidence of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, it is generally sufficient for that party to present a copy of the contract to the court. (See Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 597.) Once such a document is presented to the court, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to compel, who may present any challenges to the enforcement of the agreement and evidence in support of those challenges. [Citation]” (Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1160.)

            The court finds that Petitioner has met its initial burden of showing the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The CBA is attached as Exhibit A to the Petition to Compel Arbitration. Additionally, the CBA is signed by Petitioner’s Director, Michael Burke, and President of Local 351, Jeremy Scott. The CBA is also signed by Respondent’s President, Dan Walker. (Petition, Exh. A.) The burden now shifts to Respondent to show the invalidity of the agreement.¿¿ 

2.     Applicability to the Instant Claims

            Petitioner asserts that an outstanding grievance exists regarding whether Respondent violated section 12.1 of the CBA. (Motion, at p. 2.) As such, Petitioner argues that arbitration must be ordered unless it can be concluded that the arbitration clause excludes the dispute at issue. (Ibid.)

            The court finds that Petitioner has alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that there is a grievance which is covered by the CBA, which satisfies the requirement for an arbitrable controversy. Section 13.1 explicitly states that “grievances which involve an alleged violation…of a provision in this Agreement…shall be subject to arbitration.” (Petition, Exh. A, Article 13.1.) As such, Petitioner’s allegation that Respondent violated section 12.1 of the CBA is an arbitrable matter.

            Although Respondent does not oppose Petitioner’s motion[1], Petitioner makes the argument that this dispute must be arbitrated even if the CBA which gave rise to the alleged section 12.1 violation has subsequently expired on September 29, 2024. (Motion, at p. 8.) As such, Petitioner argues that any argument by Respondent that this court should decide the merits of the grievance at issue, or the validity of the arbitration’s procedure should be ignored as procedural questions relating to the underlying grievance must be submitted to the arbitrator for decision. (Id., at pp. 6-8.)

            The court finds that any questions of procedural arbitrability are for the arbitrator and not the court. “Once it is determined … that the parties are obligated to submit the subject matter of a dispute to arbitration, ‘procedural’ questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition should be left to the arbitrator.” (John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston (1964) 376 U.S. 543, 557.) As such, any argument that the CBA no longer forces arbitration of Petitioner’s grievance due to its expiration date are for the arbitrator to decide.

 1.    
Attorney’s Fees

            Respondent moves for the court to
award attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code section 1128. (Motion, at
p. 9.)

            Labor Code section 1128(a) provides that
“[w]here a party to a collective bargaining agreement prevails in a court
action to compel arbitration of disputes concerning the collective bargaining
agreement, the court shall award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party unless
the other party has raised substantial and credible issues involving complex or
significant questions of law or fact regarding whether or not the dispute is
arbitrable under the agreement.” (Lab. Code, § 1128, subd. (a).)

            As Petitioner prevails in this
motion and the motion is unopposed, the court finds that an attorney’s fees
award is warranted. Petitioner requests $2,120.00 in attorney’s fees and costs,
which is comprised of 3.80 hours of attorney time at $275.00 per hour, $300.00
in paralegal fees, and $775.00 in costs. (Sencer Decl., ¶¶ 2-11.)

            The court finds counsel’s hourly
rate reasonable. The court will award a total of $1,820.00 in attorney’s fees
and costs, which includes $1,045.00 in attorney’s fees and $775.00 in costs. Furthermore, the court finds that attorney’s fees should
not be awarded for services provided by counsel’s paralegal department. (Roe
v. Halbig (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 286, 312.)

Conclusion

Petitioner United Government Security
Officers of America and its Local 351’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is
GRANTED. Attorney’s Fees and costs are AWARDED in favor of Petitioner and
against Respondent in the reduced amount of $1,820.00.