Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV16140, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV16140    Hearing Date: October 8, 2024    Dept: 34

Defendant Fender Musical Instruments Corporation’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

Background

Plaintiff Araceli Aguilar De Carranza (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On November 14, 2022, Defendant Fender Musical Instruments Corporation (“Defendant”) hired Plaintiff to work as a laborer. Plaintiff was a full-time, non-exempted employee performing all job duties satisfactorily before being wrongfully terminated on February 24, 2023. At that time, Plaintiff was 48 years old.

On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff injured her hand while performing her regular job duties which limited Plaintiff’s ability to work constituting a disability. Plaintiff immediately reported her injury to Defendant and sought medical attention. Plaintiff was issues work restrictions and notified Defendant to request accommodations.

Subsequently, Defendant placed Plaintiff to work in a new department with supervisor, Defendant Ernesto Doe (“Ernesto”). Plaintiff was subject to workplace harassment perpetrated by Ernesto due to her disability. This included Ernesto continuously scrutinizing Plaintiff for her disability, pressured her to work in violation of her restrictions, asked Plaintiff to work faster, and called Plaintiff “useless”. Plaintiff reported the harassment to Defendant’s human resources.

Plaintiff’s pain persisted while working in the new department and on February 16, 2023, Plaintiff complained about her pain to human resources requesting accommodations. Before any accommodations were granted, Defendant wrongfully terminated Plaintiff on February 24, 2023 by sending her a notice purporting to change her employment status because Plaintiff had “voluntarily quit”.

On June 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting the following causes of action against Defendant, Ernesto Doe, and Does 1-20:

1.                Discrimination in Violation of Government Code § 12940;

2.               Harassment in Violation of Government Code § 12940;

3.               Retaliation in Violation of Government Code § 12940;

4.               Failure to Prevent, Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of Government Code § 12940(k);

5.               Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of Government Code § 12940;

6.               Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of Government Code § 12940;

7.               Declaratory Judgement;

8.               Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and

9.               Failure to Permit Inspection of Personnel and Payroll Records (California Labor Code § 1198.5).

On September 3, 2024, Defendant filed their Motion to Compel Arbitration. On September 24, 2024, Defendant filed a Notice of Non-Opposition. As of September 30, 2024, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion.

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.

Meet and Confer

On August 30, 2024, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to request that Plaintiff stipulates to arbitration to prevent filing this motion and attached a copy of the arbitration agreement. (Sonne Decl., ¶ 2.) As of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s counsel’s email. (Ibid.)

Existence of an Arbitration Agreement

Defendant argues that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an arbitration agreement on November 14, 2022, when Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement as part of her onboarding documents. (Motion to Compel Arbitration, 6:21-28, 7:1-3; Kovatchev Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) Defendant provides a copy of the arbitration agreement in both English and Spanish. (Kovatchev Decl., Exh. A and B.) Plaintiff signed the Spanish version of the arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement provides, in relevant part, as follows:

The Arbitration Policy applies to all Company employees in the United States, regardless of length of service or statutes, and covers all disputes that relate to or arise out of or in connection with employment at the Company or the termination of that employment, whether those disputes already exist today or arise in the future. Examples of the type of disputes or claims covered by the Arbitration Policy include, but are not limited to, claims against employees for fraud, conversion, misappropriation of trade secrets, or claims by employees for wrongful termination of employment, breach of contract, fraud, employment discrimination, harassment or retaliation under the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its amendments, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, . . . or any other state or local antidiscrimination laws, tort claims, such as wage or overtime claims or other claims under the California Labor Code, or any other legal or equitable claims and causes [of] action recognized by local, state or federal law or regulations.”

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

      I agree that it is my obligation to make use of the Arbitration Policy and to submit to final and binding arbitration any and all claims and disputes, whether they exist now or arise in the future, that relate to or arise out of or have any connection whatsoever with my employment or the termination of my employment with Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, except as otherwise permitted by the Arbitration Policy.

(Id., Exh. B, p. 4.)

Additionally, Defendant argues that Federal and California Law require enforcement of the arbitration agreement, that the agreement is valid and encompasses Plaintiff’s claims, and that the agreement meets the Armendariz factors.

As such, the court finds that Defendant has met its initial burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties wherein the parties agreed to arbitrate this dispute by providing Exhibits A and B in the Declaration of Vera Kovatchev. The burden thus shifts to Plaintiff, who may present any challenges to the enforcement of the agreement and evidence in support of those challenges.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not opposed Defendant’s motion.

Seeing that there is no issues brought by Plaintiff regarding the enforceability of the arbitration agreement and since Defendant has met its initial burden. The motion is granted.

Conclusion

Defendant Fender Musical Instruments Corporation’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.