Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCV47166, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV47166 Hearing Date: August 17, 2022 Dept: 78
Superior
Court of California
County
of Los Angeles
Department
78
DAVID
CARTAGENA, Plaintiff; vs. LITHIA
MOTORS, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: |
21STCV47166 |
Hearing Date: |
August 17, 2022 |
|
|
||
[TENTATIVE]
RULING RE: DEFENDANT
LOS ANGELES-M, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION. |
Defendant Los Angeles-M, Inc’s Motion to Compel
Arbitration is GRANTED. All further proceedings are stayed until
completion of arbitration.
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
This is an action for employment discrimination
and wrongful termination. The operative First Amended Complaint alleges as
follows.
Plaintiff David Cartagena (“Plaintiff”) was
employed by Defendant Los Angeles-M (“LAM”) for over half a decade, working at
a Mercedes Benz dealership. (FAC. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff’s supervisors, Rahi
Moghaddam (“Moghaddam”) and Bryan Radin (“Radin” and together with Moghaddam,
“Supervisors”), regularly discriminated against Plaintiff because of his race.
(FAC ¶ 12-13.) Plaintiff is Hispanic. (FAC ¶ 13.) Additionally, Plaintiff’s
Supervisors required Plaintiff to fraudulently certify vehicles for the
dealership’s “certified-pre-owned” program. (FAC ¶ 29.) Finally, Plaintiff did
not receive regularly scheduled raises as his coworkers did. (FAC ¶ 35.)
When Plaintiff reported the fraudulent conduct
and failure to pay fair raises to the Supervisors, they at first denied it.
(FAC ¶ 38.) When Plaintiff threatened to contact an attorney, Supervisors gave
him a raise by the end of the day. (FAC ¶ 39.) Shortly thereafter, Radin told
Plaintiff that Plaintiff was suspended from work for three days, and that Radin
would discuss the reasons with Plaintiff when he returned. (FAC ¶ 40.) Instead,
Radin fired Plaintiff upon Plaintiff’s return. (Ibid.) The Supervisors informed
Plaintiff’s co-workers that Plaintiff was fired for stealing automotive parts;
however, this was not true and was not reflected on Plaintiff’s termination
notice. (FAC ¶ 42.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed the
Complaint asserting seven causes of action:
1.
Wrongful
Termination in Violation of Public Policy;
2.
Race Discrimination
in Violation of FEHA;
3.
Failure to
Prevent Race Discrimination in Violation of FEHA;
4.
Retaliation in
Violation of FEHA;
5.
Retaliation for
Reporting Racial Harassment;
6.
Retaliation for
Reporting Fraud; and
7.
Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress.
On March 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed the First
Amended Complaint asserting the same seven causes of action.
Also on March 8, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed
defendants Lithia Motors, Inc., Keyes European, LLC, Rahi Moghaddam, and Bryan
Radin.
On May 2, 2022, LAM filed the instant Motion to
Compel Arbitration.
On June 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed an
Opposition.
On June 17, 2022, LAM filed a Reply.
On June 24, 2022, the Court heard argument on
the matter. The Court continued the hearing until August 17, 2022, and allowed
both parties to submit supplemental briefing about whether the doctrine of
equitable estoppel should apply.
On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Sur-Reply.
On July 29, 2022, Defendants filed a Sur-Reply.
DISCUSSION
I.
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
LAM
moves the Court to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings pending
completion of arbitration.
California law reflects a strong public policy
in favor of arbitration as a relatively quick and inexpensive method for
resolving disputes. To further that policy, California Code of Civil
Procedure section 1281.2 requires a trial court to enforce a written
arbitration agreement unless one of three limited exceptions
applies. Those statutory exceptions arise where (1) a party waives the
right to arbitration; (2) grounds exist for revoking the arbitration agreement;
and (3) pending litigation with a third party creates the possibility of
conflicting rulings on common factual or legal issues.” (Acquire II,
Ltd. v. Colton Real Estate Group (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 959, 967 [citations
omitted]; Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.)
In deciding a motion to compel arbitration,
trial courts must decide first whether an enforceable arbitration agreement
exists between the parties, and then determine the second gateway issue whether
the claims are covered within the scope of the agreement. (Omar v.
Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.) The party seeking
arbitration has the “burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration
agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, while a party opposing the
petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any
fact necessary to its defense.” (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc.
(2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842.) The trial court “sits as the trier of fact,
weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, and
any oral testimony the court may receive at its discretion, to reach a final
determination.” (Id.) General principles of contract law
govern whether parties have entered a binding agreement to arbitrate. (Pinnacle
Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55
Cal.4th 223, 236; see also Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc.
(2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.)
Here, LAM
moves the Court to compel arbitration pursuant to a binding arbitration
agreement (the “Agreement”) Plaintiff signed when Lithia Motors, Inc. (“LMI”)
purchased the dealership where Plaintiff was employed. (Radin Decl., ¶ 4.) The
Agreement states that “any claims/dispute that [Plaintiff] may have regarding
the terms of [Plaintiff’s] pay plan, [Plaintiff’s] employment, termination from
employment (including claims of discrimination and/or harassment), or any other
association [Plaintiff has] with the Company. . .shall be submitted exclusively
to final and binding individual arbitration. . .” (Radin Decl., Ex. A.)
A.
Equitable Estoppel
Relevant here is whether the doctrine of
equitable estoppel allows LAM, Plaintiff’s employer, to compel arbitration
pursuant to an arbitration agreement between Plaintiff and LMI, a holding
company that controls LAM.
“[A] nonsignatory defendant may invoke an
arbitration clause to compel a signatory plaintiff to arbitrate its claims when
the causes of action against the nonsignatory are ‘intimately founded in and
intertwined’ with the underlying contract obligations.” (Boucher v. Alliance
Title Co., Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 262, 271.) “By relying on
contract terms in a claim against a nonsignatory defendant, even if not
exclusively, a plaintiff may be equitably estopped from repudiating the
arbitration clause contained in that agreement.” (Id. at 272.) “The
focus is on the nature of the claims asserted by the plaintiff against the
nonsignatory defendant.” (Id.) “That the claims are cast in
tort rather than contract does not avoid the arbitration clause.” (Id.)
Here, Plaintiff argues that his action “Does not
bring a breach of contract claim, nor does [it] bring any claim that relies in
any way on any agreement between he and Lithia.” (Sur-Reply at p. 7.)
Plaintiff’s arguments are unavailing. First,
contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, equitable estoppel does not apply only where
a plaintiff brings a Breach of Contract cause of action based on the contract
containing the arbitration clause. As noted above, the focus is on the nature
of the claims asserted against the nonsignatory defendant, whether those claims
sound in tort or contract. (See Boucher, supra at p. 272.)
Here, Plaintiff’s causes all are based on
Plaintiff’s employment with LAM. The Arbitration Agreement explicitly states
that ““any
claims/dispute that [Plaintiff] may have regarding the terms of [Plaintiff’s]
pay plan, [Plaintiff’s] employment, termination from employment (including
claims of discrimination and/or harassment), or any other association
[Plaintiff has] with the Company. . .shall be submitted exclusively to final
and binding individual arbitration. . .”
(Radin Decl., Ex. A.) Plaintiff’s attempt to circumvent the agreement
based on the technicality of whether a holding company or its subsidiary was
the named signatory is precisely the instance where equitable estoppel is
intended to apply. (See Metalclad Corp. v. Ventana Environmental
Organizational Partnership (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1705, 1714
[“estoppel prevents a party from playing fast and loose with its commitment to
arbitrate, honoring it when advantageous and circumventing it to gain undue
advantage”].)
Finally, Plaintiff’s reliance on Jarboe v.
Hanlees Auto Group, (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 539, is unpersuasive.
In Jarboe, the Court found that an employee of a car dealership could
not be forced to arbitrate claims against twelve affiliated dealerships. The Court,
in affirming the trial court’s decision to deny arbitration, found that “while
the record shows that the dealerships are subject to ‘common ownership,’ there
is no evidence showing the relationship among the separate corporate entities
or how they operated with respect to each other’s employees.” (Id. at p.
554.)
Here, on the other hand, LMI is a holding
company that has no employees and holds and owns LAM. (Radin Decl. ¶ 5.) This
describes a fundamentally different employment relationship than that of Jarboe.
Accordingly, LAM may compel arbitration
pursuant to the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Defendants’ Motion to Compel
Arbitration is GRANTED. All further proceedings are stayed pending arbitration.
DATED: August 17, 2022
___________________________
Hon.
Robert S. Draper
Judge
of the Superior Court