Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: 2022-01253137, Date: 2023-06-15 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Defendant EFE Ruby’s Diner, LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion as of 6/12/23.

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such 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,” except under certain situations outlined by statute. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.)

“There is a public policy in favor of arbitration under federal and state law.” (McManus v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 76, 85.) “Doubts as to whether an arbitration clause applies to a particular dispute are to be resolved in favor of sending the parties to arbitration.” (United Transportation Union v. S. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 804, 808.) Accordingly, “[t]he court should order the[] [parties] to arbitrate unless it is clear that the arbitration clause cannot be interpreted to cover the dispute.” (Id.) “[T]he party resisting arbitration bears the burden of proving that the claims at issue are unsuitable for arbitration.” (Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph (2000) 531 U.S. 79, 91.)

“General principles of contract law determine whether the parties have entered a binding agreement to arbitrate.” (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Mkt. Dev. (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal. 4th 223, 236.) “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.” (Id.)

Here, Defendant moves to compel arbitration based on the “Ruby’s Diner Dispute Resolution Agreement” (Agreement) attached as Exhibit A to the declaration of Ned Westfall. Westfalll, the General Manager of Ruby’s Diner Laguna Beach, declares Plaintiff reviewed and signed the agreement during the orientation process. The Agreement provides that the parties, “agree to utilize binding individual arbitration to resolve all disputes that might arise out of or be related in any way to my employment by the Company.” The Agreement appears to have been signed by Plaintiff on 4/17/21. Plaintiff’s Complaint arises out of his employment by Defendant. Therefore, Defendant has met its burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement governing this dispute. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion and has failed to meet his burden of showing the Agreement does not apply. Therefore, the motion is granted.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 provides, “If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” Therefore, this action is stayed pending the completion of arbitration.