Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV04003, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV04003    Hearing Date: May 7, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling 

HEARING DATE:                 May 7, 2024 

CASE NUMBER:                  23TRCV04003

CASE NAME:                        Angela Tamara Seminario v. Adolfo Zendejas, et al.  

MOVING PARTY:                Defendants, Air Menzies International (USA) Inc. dba Air Menzies International, and Adolfo Zendejas

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff, Angela Tamara Seminario (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE:                        Not Set.

MOTION:                              (1) Motion to Compel Arbitration 

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) GRANTED.  Civil Case Stayed Pending Conclusion of Arbitration.  Arbitration Status Conference Set for Hearing Jan. 21, 2025, 8:30 a.m. Inglewood Dept. 8

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Factual 

            On December 1, 2023, Plaintiff, Angela Tamara Seminario (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Adolfo Zendejas, Air Menzies International (USA) Inc. dba Air Menzies International, (“Defendants”), and DOES 1 through 100. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Hostile Work Environment - Sexual Harassment; (2) Quid Pro Quo – Sexual Harassment; (3)  Sexual Discrimination; (4) Failure to Prevent Sexual Harassment & Retaliation; (5) Constructive Wrongful Termination; (6) Retaliation; (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (9) Negligent Hiring, Retention and Supervision.

            Defendants now file a Motion to Compel Arbitration.

B. Procedural  

On April 2, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. To date, no opposition has been filed, and on April 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition.

II. 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

The moving papers indicated that in March 2015, Plaintiff was hired at Defendants’ company, which was when she voluntarily executed an agreement to arbitrate. The moving papers further assert that on February 23, 2015, Plaintiff executed the Arbitration agreement which stated that Plaintiff, and “Menzies Aviation, Inc., including any subsidiaries of Menzies Aviation, Inc.” agreed to submit all employment-related disputes to binding arbitration. (Declaration of Yomar Perez (“Perez Decl.”), ¶¶ 2-5, Ex. A.) Specifically, the Arbitration Agreement includes, but is not limited to, the following:

I understand that the Menzies Aviation ADR Policy applies to disputes relating to my employment and the terms and conditions of my employment, including but not limited to my compensation, wages, claims alleging failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to reimburse expenses, failure to pay wages upon termination, failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, failure to provide meal and/or rest breaks, entitlement to wailing lime penalties and/or other claims involving employee wages, benefits, discipline, performance evaluations, promotions and transfers, and the termination of my employment, as defined in the ADR Policy materials. I also understand that this ADR Policy prohibits me from joining or participating in a class action or representative action, acting as a private attorney general or representative of others, or otherwise consolidating a covered claim with the claims of others.

I further acknowledge and agree that the Menzies ADR Policy applies to claims that include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) alleged violations of federal, state and/or local constitutions, statutes or regulations, (including but not limited to claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California Family Rights Act, the California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law, or any other statutory or common law scheme prohibiting, among other things, discrimination or harassment because of race, color, age, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity and sex; (b) claims based on any purported breach of contractual obligation, including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (c) claims of wrongful termination or constructive termination; (d) claims based on any purported breach of duty arising in tort, including violations of public policy, for emotional distress and defamation; and (e) claims related to the payment or non-payment of wages, expenses and/or the provisions of breaks as required by law, including, but not limited to, alleged violations of the California Labor Code, the wage order applicable to my industry, the Fair Labor Standards Act and any other statutory scheme governing wages.

(Perez Decl., Ex. A.)

Defendants’ included Exhibit A shows a signed and dated Arbitration Agreement which the moving parties evidence shows that Plaintiff signed. Further, as indicated by Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Arbitration Agreement appears to cover the allegations present in the Complaint. As such, the Court finds that Defendants have met their 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.

            Because Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Non-Opposition, this Court’s tentative ruling is to GRANT the arbitration agreement and stay proceedings against Defendants pending arbitration.

IV.  CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.   This civil action is stayed pending the conclusion of the arbitration.  Arbitration Status Conference Set for Hearing Jan. 21, 2025, 8:30 a.m. Inglewood Dept. 8

            Defendants are ordered to give notice and to post their share of the arbitrator’s fees within 30 days.