Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV32291, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32291    Hearing Date: February 21, 2023    Dept: 39

Craig Gibson v. KSE ESports Management, LLC, et al.

Case No. 22STCV32291

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Plaintiff Craig Gibson (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action against KSE ESports Management, LLC and Joy Chao (collectively, “Defendants”).  Now, Defendants 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.) 

Defendants advance an arbitration agreement that Plaintiff signed when KSE hired Plaintiff.  The arbitration agreement provides that Plaintiff agrees to arbitrate “all claims or controversies, past present or future, arising out of [Plaintiff’s] application for employment, employment, or termination of employment, that [KSE] may have against [Plaintiff] or that [Plaintiff]  may have against [KSE] . . . .”  (Declaration of Michael Neary, Exh. #1.)  Plaintiff does not dispute the authenticity of this agreement.  Rather, 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”).  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.)  The Court has considered Plaintiff’s arguments and finds that the arbitration agreement is not unconscionable under this law.    

Based upon the foregoing, 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.