Judge: Randall J. Sherman, Case: 2020-01162792, Date: 2022-11-04 Tentative Ruling

The Motion of Defendant Legacy Partners, Inc. to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss Claims is granted in part and denied in part.  The motion is granted in that plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims are ordered to arbitration.  The motion is denied in that plaintiff’s representative PAGA claims will not be dismissed, but will be stayed pending completion of the arbitration and pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. S274671.  The Status Conference set for November 18, 2022 is ordered off calendar.  A Post-Arbitration Review Hearing is set for May 26, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.  The parties must file a Joint Status Report at least a week before the hearing, and may request a continuance if arbitration is not yet complete.

The court concludes that there exists a valid agreement to arbitrate the claims asserted by plaintiff and that no grounds exist to bar enforcement of the agreement.  CCP §1281.2.  Plaintiff does not dispute that she signed the arbitration agreement.  Plaintiff appears to argue that the arbitration agreement does not include PAGA claims, but the arbitration agreement states that it applies to “any claim, dispute, or controversy … which would otherwise require or resort to any court or other governmental dispute resolution forum between myself and Legacy Partners … arising from, related to, or having any relationship or connection whatsoever with my seeking employment with, employment by, or other association with, the Legacy Partners, whether based on tort, contract, statutory, or equitable law, or otherwise”.  This broad language includes PAGA claims.

Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proving the facts of any defense to enforceability.  Chin v. Advanced Fresh Concepts Franchise Corp. (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 704, 708.  Plaintiff’s claims of unconscionability are unsupported by the language of the arbitration agreement and the law.  The defense of unconscionability requires that the arbitration agreement be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.  De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc. (2018) 5 Cal. 5th 966, 982; Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (2016) 62 Cal. 4th 1237, 1243; Baxter v. Genworth North America Corp. (2017) 16 Cal. App. 5th 713, 723.  While some minimal degree of procedural unconscionability is present here based on the arbitration agreement being a contract of adhesion, plaintiff has shown no substantive unconscionability.  The arbitration agreement is not rendered unenforceable just because it was required as a condition of employment.  Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (2016) 62 Cal. 4th 1237, 1245, 1251; Sanchez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 398, 402-03.

Plaintiff argues that even though the agreement is silent as to the costs of arbitration, the agreement “theoretically” may require plaintiff to pay for the costs and fees of the arbitrator and the arbitration.  However, as plaintiff correctly notes, the case of Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 83, 110-11, requires the employer to pay costs for which plaintiff would not be responsible if the case were prosecuted in court, including arbitrator’s fees and costs.  Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal. App. 4th 638, 654.  Thus, applicable law will be used in this case, and plaintiff will not need to pay for any costs unique to arbitration.  As a result, plaintiff has shown no substantive unconscionability, and the parties’ arbitration agreement is enforceable.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.