Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV04273, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 24STCV04273    Hearing Date: October 8, 2024    Dept: 34

Defendant MCI Foods Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED.

Background

Plaintiff Maria Quezada (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

Plaintiff was an assembling line employee for Defendant MCI Foods Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff worked for Defendant for 14 years until the end of 2022 when Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated after requesting accommodations due to physical limitations caused by a thumb injury which Defendant denied.

In late 2021, Plaintiff suffered severe pain in her left thumb and right ring finger. From April 2022 through October 2022, Plaintiff took medical leave to receive treatment and undergo surgery on her thumb.

In October 2022, Plaintiff returned to work with medically prescribed limitations. Defendant accommodated Plaintiff’s restrictions for the following two months.

On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff’s doctor renewed Plaintiff’s need for accommodations removing restrictions relating to lifting but left the restrictions prohibiting forceful gripping, grasping, or twisting of her right hand.

On December 22, 2022, Defendant informed Plaintiff that she was not allowed to work due to her restrictions, even though Plaintiff had been able to work without violating her restrictions. Defendant’s warehouse then closed for the holidays until January 2, 2023.

On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff returned to work, but Defendant refused to let her work. Instead, Defendant instructed Plaintiff to go home thereby terminating her employment. Plaintiff asked to speak to management prior to leaving but Defendant refused. Following her termination, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Defendant’s CEO asking for her job back. Defendant never responded.

On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting the following causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-25:

1.               Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA;

2.               Failure to Engage in Interactive Process;

3.               Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA;

4.               Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; and

5.               Failure to Prevent in Violation of FEHA.

On June 27, 2024, Defendant filed their Motion to Compel Arbitration. On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion. On July 26, 2024, Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition.

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.) (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 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

Defendant moves the court for orders compelling arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims and staying all further judicial proceedings in this action pending completion of arbitration.

A.              Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to Defendant’s evidence supporting their motion are OVERRULED.

Defendant’s evidentiary objections to Plaintiff’s declaration are also OVERRULED.

B.              Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests that the court take judicial notice of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.’s (“JAMS”) Employment Arbitration Rules and Procedures. (Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice, 2:3-15, Exh. 1.)

This document is not relevant to the court’s ruling, and Defendant’s request is therefore DENIED. (Gbur v. Cohen (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 296, 301 (“[J]udicial notice . . . is always confined to those matters which are relevant to the issue at hand.”].)

C.              Existence of an Arbitration Agreement 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an arbitration agreement on two occasions, July 19, 2019 and July 30, 2019. (Cortez’s Decl., ¶ 9.) Helen Cortez (“Cortez”), Human Resources Manager, declares that Plaintiff chose to review and sign both arbitration agreements in Spanish, since that is her first language. (Ibid.) On July 19, 2019, Plaintiff had an opportunity to review the arbitration agreement and signed it without asking any questions. (Ibid.) On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff reviewed the arbitration agreement for a second time and signed it without asking questions in order to ensure that she would receive eight hours of paid vacation as consideration for signing. (Ibid.)

Defendant provides a copy of both Spanish documents signed by Plaintiff. (Id., Exh. 2-3.) Defendant also provides an English copy of the arbitration agreement. (Id., Exh. 1.) The arbitration agreement provides, in relevant part, as follows:

The Parties to this Agreement agree to arbitrate any disputes, claims, or controversies (“claims”) that either party may have against each other, including their current and former agents, owners, officers, directors, managers, or employees, which have already arisen, or which arise from the application for employment, the employment relationship between Employee and Employer, or the termination thereof. Claims covered by this Agreement include, but are not limited to: past, present, and future claims of employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation, defamation (including post-employment defamation or retaliation), breach of a contract or covenant, fraud, negligence, violation of public policy, emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, trade secrets, unfair competition, wages, bonuses, commissions or other compensation or monies claimed to be owed, vacation or sick pay, meal and rest periods, wrongful termination, tort claims, equitable claims, and all statutory and common law claims under state, local or federal law, unless specifically excluded below. This Agreement specifically covers, without limitation, claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991; the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Rehabilitation Act; the Occupational Safety and Health Act; the Equal Pay Act; the Pregnancy Discrimination Act; the Family and Medical Leave Act; the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act; the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and their state and local law statutory counterparts. This Agreement also covers any and all claims that the Company may have against me, including (but not limited to) claims for misappropriation of Company property, disclosure of proprietary information or trade secrets, interference with contract, trade libel, gross negligence, or any other claim for alleged wrongful conduct or breach of the duty of loyalty. Also, specifically included are all claims, disputes, and/or controversies relating to the scope, validity, or enforceability of this Agreement, except as to the Parties’ waiver of participation in class or representative actions; any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, or enforceability of this class waiver may only be determined by a court and not an arbitrator. This Agreement excludes:(i) claims arising under the National Labor Relations Act; (ii) claims for workers’ compensation benefits to remedy work-related injury or illness; (iii) claims for state unemployment and/or disability benefits; and (iv) claims arising under any employee benefit or retirement plan that provides for its own dispute resolution procedure. THE PARTIES UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THEY ARE WAIVING THEIR RIGHTS TO BRING SUCH CLAIMS IN COURT, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL. THE PARTIES FURTHER UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, CLAIMS MUST BE BROUGHT IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING, AND EACH THEREFORE, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, WAIVES ANY RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION INVOLVING CLAIMS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION.

(Id., Exh. 1, p.1.)

[For current employees: I am entering into this Agreement voluntarily in consideration for continued employment at M.C.I. Foods, Inc. and one day (8 hours) of vacation time and in exchange for the speed and efficiency in resolving employment-related claims that the arbitration process offers. I acknowledge that my consent to being bound by this Arbitration Agreement is an explicit condition of my continued employment at M.C.I. Foods, Inc. I have been advised of my right to consult with counsel regarding this Agreement. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT BY ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT, I AM WAIVING ANY RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY.]

(Id., Exh. 1, p.2.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff did not agree to arbitrate her claims since Plaintiff’s limited Spanish reading ability due to her middle school education level did not allow her to understand the terms contained in the arbitration agreement. (Opp., 5:20-28.) Plaintiff relied solely on the representation of the human resources representative as to what the document entailed. (Ibid.) Plaintiff argues and declares that she was unaware that she was signing an arbitration agreement and instead believed that she was signing a document to gain additional vacation pay. (Id.; Quezada Decl., ¶¶ 4, 6.) As such, Plaintiff argues that there is no valid agreement between the parties as there was no mutual assent to arbitration. (Opp., 6:1-2.)

Plaintiff also argues that since Plaintiff did not sign the English version of the arbitration agreement, the Spanish documents cannot be considered as they were not translated pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(g) which states:

       Exhibits written in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation, certified under oath by a qualified interpreter.

As such, Plaintiff argues that Defendant did not provide a valid and signed arbitration agreement by Plaintiff. (Id., 6:6-28.)

In reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s lack of education does not invalidate the arbitration agreement. (Reply, 4:16-28.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s conduct in signing the same arbitration agreement twice without informing Defendant or Cortez about her inability to understand the document shows a presumption that Plaintiff did know she was signing the arbitration agreement. (Id., 6:1-10.) Additionally, Defendant argues that since Cortez referred to the arbitration agreement as so in Spanish when meeting with Plaintiff on both occasion, Plaintiff had an understanding of what she was signing. (Id., 6:11-28.) Cortez declares that she explained to Plaintiff that she was signing an arbitration agreement in consideration for eight hours of additional vacation time. (Supp. Cortez Decl., ¶ 5.)

Additionally, for the first time, Defendant provides a certified translated copy of the arbitration agreement pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(g). (Reply, 2:17-28, 3:1:-9.) Defendant argues that they have good cause to introduce new evidence in their reply since Plaintiff did not specify her grounds to oppose arbitration during their meet and confer process. (Ibid.) Defendant also argues that Defendant’s introduction of new evidence is to meet procedural requirements and is not substantive as to impose prejudice on Plaintiff. (Ibid.) Defendant also argues that new evidence should be admitted where Plaintiff had access to the evidence in question. (Ibid.)

The court finds that Defendant’s failure to provide a certified translated copy of the arbitration agreement in their initial motion creates evidentiary issues.

“The general rule of motion practice, which applies here, is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers. The inclusion of additional evidentiary matter with the reply should only be allowed in the exceptional case and if permitted, the other party should be given the opportunity to respond. The same rule has been noted in other contexts as well.” (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537–1538 [cleaned up].)

Here, Defendant did not meet their burden to show that a valid arbitration agreement exists as the court and apparently Plaintiff did not receive a translated copy of the arbitration agreement actually signed by Plaintiff until Defendant’s reply. Defendant has not argued that there is an exceptional circumstance that warrants allowing such evidence to be presented for the first time in the reply, much less recognized any error on their part nor requested that Plaintiff be given an opportunity to respond to the newly presented evidence.

Conclusion

Defendant MCI Foods Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED.