Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: KC069709, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: KC069709 Hearing Date: December 15, 2022 Dept: O
Defendants PAMA Management Inc.’s and I E Rental Homes, Inc.’s Motion
to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED, to the extent that the case is ordered
to arbitration. The arbitrator is to determine questions of arbitrability.
Background
Case No. KC069709 (Negron)
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
Pama and IE Rental (hereinafter, “Defendants”) move the court for an order compelling Negron’s individual PAGA claims against them.
Request for Judicial Notice
The court rules on Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice of Exhibit D (i.e., “Employment Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures of the American Arbitration Association”) is granted.
Merits
At the outset, the court notes that Plaintiff does not oppose the instant motion “to the extent that it seeks to arbitrate this matter” and “agreed with Defendants that this matter should be sent to arbitration based on the Parties’ Residential Apartment Manager Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) and Arbitration Agreement -- Addendum to Employment Agreement (the “Arbitration Agreement”) (together, the ‘Agreements’).” (Opposition, 1:2-9).
Plaintiff, however, does oppose the motion on the basis that the arbitrator, not the court, should determine the issue of arbitrability, i.e., whether the Agreements allow for the parties to arbitrate Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims (Id., 1:10-12 and 1:27-2:1); in doing so, Plaintiff makes reference to the parties’ Employment Agreement, which provides in relevant part:
RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT MANAGER EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT
This Employment Agreement . . . is
entered into between PAMA
MANAGEMENT COMPANY . . . and Robert Negron (hereinafter
‘Employee’). . .
9. ARBITRATION
OF DISPUTE: Any dispute, claim or grievance arising
out of or relating to Employee’s
employment, or out of the interpretation or
applicability of this Agreement,
shall be submitted to binding arbitration
pursuant to the Employment
Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration
Association. The parties hereby
specifically agree to arbitrate any and all
claims arising out of Employee’s
employment under this Agreement or the
termination thereof, including any
and all statutory claims based on all
applicable federal and state
anti-discrimination, wage payment, and other
employment laws. The parties agree
to accept the Arbitrator’s award as final
and binding as to any matters
properly submitted to arbitration under
Agreement.
(Wilson Decl., Exh. A, p. 3, ¶ 8 [emphasis added].)
“Where ordinary contracts are at issue, it is up to the parties to determine whether a particular matter is primarily for arbitrators or for courts to decide . . . courts presume that the parties intend courts, not arbitrators, to decide . . . disputes about ‘arbitrability.’” (BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentina (2014) 572 U.S. 25, 34.) With that said, “parties can agree to arbitrate ‘gateway’ questions of ‘arbitrability,’ such as whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate or whether their agreement covers a particular controversy.” (Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63, 68-69.)
“There are two prerequisites for a delegation clause to be effective. First, the language of the clause must be clear and unmistakable. Second, the delegation must not be revocable under state contract defenses such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.” (Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 231, 242.)
Here, Paragraph 8 of the Employment Agreement states unambiguously that the arbitrator is to have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute, claim or grievance arising out of or relating to “the interpretation or applicability of this Agreement.” Next, Defendants do not argue that the above language is revocable under any contract defense, including “fraud, duress, or unconscionability.”
The court, then, will grant the instant motion to the extent that the case is ordered to arbitration. The arbitrator is to determine questions of arbitrability.