Judge Robert B. Broadbelt, Case Number: 24STCV18136, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV18136, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling

The court considered (1) the moving papers filed on September 4, 2024, (2) the opposition papers filed on April 11, 2025, and (3) the reply papers filed on June 3, 2025.

On September 4, 2024, defendant Good Son, LLC, d/b/a Subaru Pacific a/k/a LA Car Guy (“Defendant”) filed the pending motion to compel plaintiff Meshlin Nino (“Plaintiff”) to submit her claims to binding arbitration, which was set for hearing on April 23, 2025. Plaintiff thereafter filed, on April 11, 2024, her opposition papers to Defendant’s motion.

On April 15, 2025, the court issued a Notice re Continuance of Hearing and Order and continued the hearing on Defendant’s motion from April 23, 2025 to June 10, 2025. (Apr. 15, 2025 Notice re Continuance of Hearing and Order, p. 1.)

Thereafter, Defendant filed, on May 13, 2025, its “Amended and Supplemental Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action” and evidence in support of its amended and supplemental motion. Plaintiff filed, on May 28, 2025, her “Opposition to Defendant Good Son, LLC’s Amended and Supplemental Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action” and evidence in support of her opposition.

Defendant’s amended and supplemental motion—which was filed after Plaintiff filed her opposition papers—states that it is “intended to supplement Defendant’s previously filed Motion to Compel Arbitration papers.” (Amended & Supp. Notice of Mot., p. 2:6-7.) However, the amended and supplemental motion is based on grounds not raised in its initial motion. Specifically, Defendant’s initial motion requests an order compelling Plaintiff to submit to binding arbitration based on the existence of an arbitration agreement dated May 6, 2021, while Defendant’s amended and supplemental motion requests an order compelling Plaintiff to submit to binding arbitration based on the existence of a separate arbitration agreement dated April 23, 2021. (See, e.g., Def. Mot. filed Sep. 4, 2024, pp. 1:6-8, 4:21-5:7; May 13, 2025 Hartzberg Decl., Ex. A.)

Defendant has not cited authority establishing that it is permitted to file a supplemental brief in support of its moving papers (1) that is based on a new ground for relief (2) after Plaintiff filed her opposition papers. That Defendant filed the amended and supplemental motion at least 16 court days before the hearing on this motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b) does not support a finding that Defendant was permitted to file a supplemental brief as part of its moving papers after Plaintiff already filed opposition papers.

Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition papers attempt to rely on or incorporate her original opposition papers. (See, e.g., Pl. May 28, 2025 Opp. to Amended & Supp. Mot., pp. 2:9-11 [“This motion fails for the reasons outlined in Plaintiff’s initial opposition to the motion to compel . . . .”] 4:23-25 [“Plaintiff also contends she did not sign the May 6th agreement, as set forth in Plaintiff’s initial opposition to the motion to compel”].) Because Plaintiff would be entitled to oppose both the (1) initial moving papers, and (2) amended and supplemental moving papers, the court would be required, in ruling on this motion, to consider both of Plaintiff’s opposition briefs, which together total 23 pages in violation of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113.[1] (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1113, subd. (d) [“Except in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages”].)

For the reasons set forth above, the court has not considered, and orders stricken, the following: (1) Defendant’s “Amended and Supplemental Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action” and the evidence filed in support thereof; and (2) “Plaintiff Meshlin Nino’s Opposition to Defendant Good Son, LLC’s Amended and Supplemental Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action” and the evidence filed in support thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b) [the court, at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper, may strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state].) To the extent that the reply papers filed on June 3, 2025 rely on Defendant’s contention that the court should compel Plaintiff to submit to arbitration based on the April 23, 2021 alleged agreement, the court has not considered those arguments since they were not raised in Defendant’s initial moving papers. (Sachs v. Sachs (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 59, 66 [“we will not consider matters raised for the first time in the reply brief”].)

The court rules on Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections, filed on April 11, 2025, as follows:

The court rules on Defendant’s evidentiary objections, filed on June 3, 2025, as follows:

The court does not rule on Objections Nos. 3-4 because those objections are directed to the May 28, 2025 declaration of Plaintiff, which the court has not considered for the reasons set forth above.

The court sustains Defendant’s June 5, 2025 evidentiary objection to, and orders stricken, the “Notice of Errata” filed by Plaintiff on June 4, 2025, because that evidence was not filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing on this motion as required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b); June 4, 2025 Notice of Errata, p. 99 [proof of service by email on June 4, 2025].)

Defendant moves the court for an order (1) compelling Plaintiff to submit her claims to binding arbitration, (2) staying this action pending completion of arbitration, and (3) awarding costs in favor of Defendant in the amount of $495.

As a threshold matter, the court finds that Defendant has not met its burden to show that the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) governs this motion because (1) Defendant did not show that the agreement that is the subject of this motion is a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce, and (2) the agreement on which Defendant relies states that all claims subject thereto “shall be subject to binding arbitration under the arbitration rules set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 through 1294.2, including section 1283.05 (the ‘Rules’) and pursuant to California law.” (Evenskaas v. California Transit, Inc. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 285, 292 [“The party asserting the FAA applies to an agreement has ‘the burden to demonstrate FAA coverage by declarations and other evidence’”] [internal citation omitted]; 9 U.S.C. § 2; Villa Decl., Ex. A, Company Agreements, p. 1.) The court therefore finds that Defendant’s motion is governed by the California Arbitration Act.

“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 the court finds that the right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner or that grounds exist for rescission of the agreement.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §¿1281.2.)¿¿¿¿¿¿

“‘ “The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, while the party opposing the petition bears the burden of establishing a defense to the agreement’s enforcement.” ’”¿ (Beco v. Fast Auto Loans (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 292, 302.)¿ To determine the existence of an arbitration agreement, the court uses “a three-step burden-shifting process.”¿ (Iyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 747, 755.)¿ “The arbitration proponent must first recite verbatim, or provide a copy of, the alleged agreement.¿ [Citations.]¿ A movant can bear this initial burden ‘by attaching a copy of the arbitration agreement purportedly bearing the opposing party’s signature.’”¿ (Ibid. [internal citations omitted].)¿ “If the movant bears its initial burden, the burden shifts to the party opposing arbitration to identify a factual dispute as to the agreement’s existence . . . .”¿ (Ibid.)¿ If the opposing party meets its burden to “submit sufficient evidence to create a factual dispute” as to the existence of the agreement, the burden shifts back to the arbitration proponent, who retains the ultimate burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence.¿ (Ibid.; Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165-166.)¿¿

The court finds that Defendant has not met its initial burden to attach a copy of an arbitration agreement between Defendant, on the one hand, and Plaintiff, on the other hand. (Iyere, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 755.)

In support of its motion, Defendant has presented a copy of a document entitled “Company Agreements” (the “Agreement”). (Villa Dec., Ex. A, Agreement.) The document is not signed, but is accompanied by a page (1) with the header “ADP verifies the Electronic Signature of this document[,]” and (2) that states that Plaintiff electronically signed the document on May 6, 2021. (Id., p. 3.) The court finds that Defendant has not shown that it is a party to the Agreement.

As noted by Plaintiff, the Agreement refers only to “Company (employer)[,]” which is not identified anywhere therein. (Villa Decl., Ex. A, Agreement, p. 1.) Thus, the face of the Agreement does not show that Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant to arbitrate her claims against Defendant. (Villa Decl., Ex. A, Agreement, p. 1 [“In consideration of my employment with Company . . . , I agree that any and all controversies, claims, or disputes with anyone (including the company and any employee, officer, director, shareholder or benefit plan of the company in their capacity as such or otherwise) arising out of, relating to, or resulting from my employment with the Company” or termination thereof “shall be subject to binding arbitration”] [emphasis added].) Defendant did not present evidence, such as other employment documents executed at the same time or incorporated in the Agreement, showing that “Company” is defined to mean Defendant. (Avery v. Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 50, 66 [parties may incorporate by reference into their contract the terms of another document under certain circumstances].)

The court acknowledges that, in its reply papers, Defendant has argued that “the May 6, 2021, agreement refers to the Company as ‘employer’ and it is undisputed that Plaintiff worked for Defendant, as Plaintiff’s own Complaint alleges.” (Reply, p. 3:1-3.) But (1) as set forth above, the Agreement itself does not define “Company” or “employer” as used in the Agreement, and (2) it is possible that some other entity could be considered the “Company” or “employer” (e.g., if Defendant is owned by another company).

The court further acknowledges that Defendant has relied on the evidence filed in support of its amended and supplemental motion on May 13, 2025. The court has ordered that it shall not consider such evidence for the reasons set forth above.[2] However, even if the court were to consider the evidence filed on May 13, 2025, the court finds that it is insufficient to show that “Company (employer)” refers to Defendant. For example, Defendant did not point to any provisions in the “Contingent Offer of Employment,” which sets forth a separate arbitration agreement, that defines Company for the purpose of the Agreement. (May 13, 2025 Hartzberg Decl., Ex. A; May 13, 2025 Delgadillo Decl., Ex. A; Avery, supra, 218 Cal.App.5th at p. 66 [“For the terms of another document to be incorporated into the document executed by the parties the reference must be clear and unequivocal, the reference must be called to the attention of the other party and he must consent thereto, and the terms of the incorporated document must be known or easily available to the contracting parties”] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].)

Thus, the court finds that Defendant has not met its burden to prove that it and Plaintiff entered into an agreement to arbitrate the controversy alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. The court therefore denies Defendant’s motion.

The court denies defendant Good Son, LLC, d/b/a Subaru Pacific a/k/a LA Car Guy’s motion to compel arbitration.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, subdivision (b), the court orders that the following filings are stricken: (1) the “Amended and Supplemental Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action,” filed by defendant Good Son, LLC, d/b/a Subaru Pacific a/k/a LA Car Guy on May 13, 2025; (2) the “Declaration of James Hartzberg in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration,” filed by defendant Good Son, LLC, d/b/a Subaru Pacific a/k/a LA Car Guy on May 13, 2025; (3) the “Declaration of Ruth Delgadillo” filed by defendant Good Son, LLC, d/b/a Subaru Pacific a/k/a LA Car Guy on May 13, 2025; (4) the “Plaintiff Meshlin Nino’s Opposition to Defendant Good Son, LLC’s Amended and Supplemental Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action,” filed by plaintiff Meshlin Nino on May 28, 2025; (5) the “Declaration of Plaintiff Meshlin Nino in Opposition to Defendant’s Amended and Supplemental Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action,” filed by plaintiff Meshlin Nino on May 28, 2025; and (6) the “Notice of Errata,” filed by plaintiff Meshlin Nino on June 4, 2025.

[1] The court’s conclusion is not changed by the fact that Defendant’s moving papers, together, total less than 15 pages, because (1) Plaintiff, as a matter of due process, is entitled to respond to both of Defendant’s separate moving briefs, particularly where Defendant has belatedly moved for relief on a second ground not raised in its initial motion, and (2) as set forth above, Defendant has not cited authority to show that it was permitted to file, after Plaintiff filed her opposition papers, a supplemental brief in support of its motion that raised new grounds for relief.

[2] Typically, the court considers evidence filed in support of a reply to a motion to compel arbitration if it has been filed to address issues raised by the opposition papers. Here, Defendant did not file the subject declarations on May 13, 2025 in support of its reply papers, but rather, in support of its amended and supplemental motion, which is improper for the reasons set forth above. (Not. of Amended & Supp. Motion, p. 2:15-20 [stating that the amended and supplemental motion is based, inter alia, on the declarations of James Hartzberg and Ruth Delgadillo.)

meshlin nino ; Plaintiff, vs. good son, llc, d/b/a subaru pacific a/k/a la car guy , et al.; Defendants.	Case No.:	24STCV18136

	Hearing Date:	June 10, 2025

	Time:	10:00 a.m.

	[tentative] Order RE: defendant’s motion to compel arbitration