Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case 22STCV18251 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV18251, Date: 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18251 Hearing Date: February 22, 2023 Dept: 39

Norma Magdaleno v. Arcadia Care Center, LLC

Case No. 22STCV18251

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Plaintiff Norma Magdaleno (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action against Defendant Arcadia Care Center, LLC (“Defendant”). Now, Defendant moves to compel arbitration. The moving party on a petition to compel arbitration “bears 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. 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.” (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842, internal quotations and citations omitted.)

Defendant relies upon an arbitration agreement that Plaintiff signed. The arbitration agreement provides that Plaintiff agrees to arbitrate “[a]ny and all claims or controversies arising out of [Plaintiff’s] application or candidacy for employment, employment, or cessation of employment with [DEFENDANT] . . . .” (Declaration of Melissa Guerrero, Exh. A.) Melissa Guerrero states that she handled Plaintiff’s on-boarding process and she remembers Plaintiff. (Id., ¶ 4.) Guerrero states that she presented the arbitration agreement to Plaintiff and saw her sign the document, after which Guerrero signed the document. (Id., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff attempts to challenge the authenticity of this document by stating that she does not remember signing the arbitration agreement. (Declaration of Norma Magdaleno, ¶ 5.) However, the arbitration agreement has a handwritten signature—not an electronic signature—and Plaintiff does not dispute that the signature is her signature. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Court finds that this arbitration agreement is authentic. Not only did Guerrero witness Plaintiff sign the agreement, “[i]f a party confronted with his or her handwritten signature on an arbitration agreement is unable to allege that the signature is inauthentic or forged, the fact that that person does not recall signing the agreement neither creates a factual dispute as to the signature’s authenticity nor affords an independent basis to find that a contract was not formed.” (Iyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 747, 303 Cal.Rptr.3d 835, 845.)

Plaintiff argues that she relied on Defendant’s intentional misrepresentations in signing the arbitration agreement. Plaintiff’s declaration does not support that argument. In her declaration, Plaintiff states that she asked Guerrero, “What are these forms?” (Declaration of Norma Magdaleno, ¶ 6.) Guerrero responded that it was “everything we went over when you got hired.” (Ibid.) This is not misleading. Plaintiff also states that Guerrero “did not say anything about the arbitration agreement.” (Ibid.) However, the arbitration agreement was clearly identified as such. The top states in all capital letters: “EMPLOYEE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT.” (Declaration of Melissa Guerrero, Exh. A.) The agreement states clearly that the parties agree to arbitrate their claims. (Ibid.) Plaintiff signed the document indicating that she had read and agreed to its terms. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff argues that the agreement is unconscionable. The Court finds that while there is some evidence of procedural unconscionability, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the agreement is substantively unconscionable. Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83. However, in the agreement, the parties agree that the agreement shall be governed under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”). Specifically, the agreement states: “This Agreement is entered into under the Federal Arbitration Act, and shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the law and procedures developed under that statute.” (Declaration of Melissa Guerrero, Exh. A, ¶ 8.) A choice of law provision in an arbitration agreement is enforceable. (See Coopers & Lybrand v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 524, 538.) Because the FAA applies, the Court cannot invalidate the arbitration agreement at issue based on rules that apply specifically to arbitration agreements. (AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333, 339.) “[The] savings clause [under the FAA] permits agreements to arbitrate to be invalidated by generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability, but not by defenses that apply only to arbitration . . . .” (Ibid.)

Finally, Plaintiff argues that Labor Code section 432.6 precludes enforcement of the arbitration agreement because it was a condition of employment. However, Labor Code section 432.6 does not apply to arbitration agreements that are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. (Lab. Code, § 432.6, subd. (f).) As set forth above, the Federal Arbitration Act applies.

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s remaining arguments and finds that they have no merit. Therefore, the Court orders as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is granted.

2. The Court takes the case management conference off-calendar and orders the parties to meet-and-confer and schedule their arbitration forthwith.

3. The Court sets an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed following arbitration for November 27, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. The Court provides notice that if Plaintiff’s counsel does not appear, absent good cause, the Court will assume that this case has been resolved by way of arbitration or settlement and shall dismiss this case with prejudice.

4. Defendants’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.