Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV01981, Date: 2023-11-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV01981, Date: 2023-11-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV01981 Hearing Date: November 29, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: November 29, 2023¿

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV01981

CASE NAME: Jeromy Haro v. Carwell LLC, et al.

¿ ¿

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Carwell LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Jeromy Haro (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel Arbitration

Tentative Rulings: (1) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. On the day before this hearing, the parties submitted a stipulation to arbitrate, but it did not address staying the litigation nor setting periodic status conferences

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

¿¿

On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff, Jeromy Haro (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Carwell LLC, and DOES 1 through 10. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Wrongful Termination and Retaliation; (2) Failure to Provide Meal periods or Pay additional wages in lieu thereof; and (3) Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Pay Additional Wages in Lieu Thereof.

Defendant Carwell now files a Motion to Compel Arbitration.

B. Procedural

On September 1, 2023, Defendant, Carwell LLC dba Mercedes-Benz of South Bay filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. To date, no opposition has been filed. On November 20, 2023, Carwell filed a Notice of Non-Opposition.

II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant filed a Request for Judicial Notice, requesting this Court take judicial notice of the following documents:

1. Plaintiff Jeromy Haro’s Complaint filed June 20, 2023, in the case styled Jeromy Haro v. Carwell LLC., Los Angeles County Superior Case Number 23TRCV01981. (Exhibit A)

The Court GRANTS this request, and takes judicial notice of the above filing.

III. ANALYSIS ¿

A. Legal Standard

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) states that “[a] written provision in any . . . contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” (9 U.S.C. § 2.) California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in favor of arbitrability. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971-72.)

California law states that “[o]n 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….” (Code Civ. Proc, § 1281.2.) “The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability.” (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1281.2, generally, on a petition to compel arbitration, the court must grant the petition 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.

When seeking to compel arbitration, the initial burden lies with the moving party to demonstrate the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by preponderance of evidence. (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 841-42; Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021), 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 164-65.) It is sufficient for the moving party to produce a copy of the arbitration agreement or set forth the agreement’s provisions. (Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165.) The burden then shifts to the opposing party to prove by a preponderance of evidence any defense to enforcement of the contract or the arbitration clause. (Ruiz, 232 Cal.App.4th at 842; Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165.) Subsequently, the moving party must establish with the preponderance of admissible evidence a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. (Ibid.) The trial court then weighs all the evidence submitted and uses its discretion to make a final determination. (Ibid.) “California law, ‘like [federal law], reflects a strong policy favoring arbitration agreements and requires close judicial scrutiny of waiver claims.’” (Wagner Const. Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 19, 31.)

If the court orders arbitration, then the court shall stay the action until arbitration is completed. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

B. Discussion

Defendant notes that as part of Plaintiff’s employment with Carwell LLC dba Mercedes-Benz of South Bay, Plaintiff executed an arbitration agreement on December 9, 2022. Defendant further notes that the Arbitration Agreement covers: “any claim, dispute, and/or controversy…arising from, related to, or having any relationship or connection whatsoever with [Plaintiff’s] seeking employment with, employment by, termination of employment from, or other association with the Company.” (Declaration of Cynthia Diaz (“Cynthia Decl.”), ¶ 4, Exhibit A.) Moreover, Defendant contends that the Arbitration Agreement was mutual, and states that covered disputes: “shall be resolved through mandatory, neutral, binding arbitration on an individual basis only.” (Cynthia Decl., ¶ 4, Exhibit A.) Lastly, the Arbitration Agreement defines “Company” as “the entity [Plaintiff] is employed by, together with its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors and assigns…” (Cynthia Decl., ¶ 4, Exhibit A.)

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that that he was wrongfully terminated on February 28, 2023, that he was not allowed uninterrupted rest periods, and that he was not allowed to clock out during his lunch period. Based on this, the Court finds that Defendant has met its initial burden of showing that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. The Court also finds that Defendant has carried its burden in showing that the parties appear to be bound to arbitrate each of Plaintiff’s causes of action in the Complaint.

Finally, this Court finds that Defendant has carried its burden in illustrating to the Court that the Arbitration Agreement satisfies the Armendariz requirements. Pursuant to Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, when an arbitration provision arises out of an employee-employer relationship, Courts must determine if a mandatory arbitration agreement meets these requirements to avoid being deemed unconscionable for curtailing an employee’s rights” (1) neutral arbitrator; (2) more than minimal discovery; (3) a written award; (4) availability of all types of relief that would be available in a court proceeding; and (5) requirement that the employer pay the unique expenses of arbitration.

Here, the Arbitration Agreement notes: (1) that the neutral arbitrator “…shall be a retired judge or licensed attorney with experience serving as an arbitrator, as mutually agreed to by the parties…” (Cynthia Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Next, the Arbitration Agreement between the parties notes: (2) that the arbitration shall proceed “in conformity with the Federal Rules of Evidence [and] the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Cynthia Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Third, the Arbitration Agreement notes the arbitrator “shall follow controlling law and issue a decision in writing within 45 days of the arbitration hearing with a supporting opinion based on applicable law. (Cynthia Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Fourth, the Arbitration Agreement does not limit damages nor statutorily imposed remedies. (Cynthia Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Finally, Defendant notes that the Arbitration Agreement confirms that Plaintiff will not incur any costs unique to arbitration, noting: “[t]he Company will pay all arbitrator’s fees and other unique costs relating to the arbitration forum…” (Cynthia Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.)

IV. CONCLUSION¿

Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any written opposition, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED and the lawsuit shall be stayed pending further order of the Court, subject only to periodic status reports so the Court can monitor progress and completion of the arbitration.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.