Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV38328, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38328    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: 39

Sara-Beth Hannah v. Mendocino Farms, LLC

Case No. 22STCV38328

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Plaintiff Sara-Beth Hannah (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment case against Mendocino Farms, 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 proffers an arbitration agreement.  First, the moving party bears the burden of producing prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy.  (See Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165.)  For this step, “it is not necessary to follow the normal procedures of document authentication.”  (Id., quoting Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.)  “If the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden and the opposing party does not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement, then nothing more is required for the moving party to meet its initial burden of persuasion.”  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff provides a declaration stating that she does not recall receiving or signing an arbitration agreement.  (Declaration of Sara-Beth Hannah, ¶ 2.)  Then, “the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the agreement.”  (Id., citation omitted.)  Defendant relies on the declaration of Loren Reynoso, the “Vice President of People.”  Reynoso states that Defendant uses an electronic portal to require its employees to view and accept policies and procedures, including its arbitration agreement.  Reynoso states that Defendant’s records show that Plaintiff logged in on June 28, 2021, and completed her new hire paperwork, including the arbitration agreement, using her unique login credentials.  (Declaration of Loren Reynoso, ¶¶ 7-14.)  It is clear that the attached exhibits are business records.  This evidence suffices to show Plaintiff executed the arbitration agreement. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable under Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83.  The arbitration agreement Plaintiff signed specifies that the Federal Arbitration Act governs.  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 rules set forth in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83 are specific to arbitration agreements.  (See Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 638, 661.)  Nothing in the arbitration agreement satisfies the standard of unconscionability.

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Based upon the foregoing, Defendant’s 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.