Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV04381, Date: 2024-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04381    Hearing Date: March 11, 2024    Dept: 39

Yesenia Lisseth Franco Escalante v. Culichitown Pico Rivera, Inc., et al.

Case No. 23STCV04381

Motion to Compel Arbitration

            Plaintiff Yesenia Lisseth Franco Escalante (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment discrimination action against her employer, Culichitown Pirco Rivera, Inc. and related entities (collectively, “Defendants”).  Defendants move 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 on an arbitration agreement, which has both English and Spanish versions.  (Declaration of Beverly Castro, Exhs. A & B.)  Plaintiff signed the version in Spanish.  (Id., Exh. A.)  The parties agreed to arbitrate “[a]ny and all claims, controversies or disputes . . . relating to any aspect of [Plaintiff]’s employment with [Culichitown Pico Rivera] (pre-hire through post-termination), which [Culichitown Pico Rivera] may have against [Plaintiff], or which [Plaintiff] may have against [Culichitown Pico Rivera] or any related entity, owner, partner, officer, director, shareholder, employee, contractor, representative or agent, shall be resolved through final and binding arbitration.”  (Id., Exh. B, ¶ 1.) 

Plaintiff argues that her claims predicated upon allegations of sexual harassment cannot be arbitrated under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (the “Act”).  Plaintiff also argues that the agreement is unconscionable.  The parties delegated these issues to the arbitrator: “[I]n the event of a dispute related to the validity, enforceability, formation or interpretation of this Agreement . . .  the arbitrator shall have the sole and exclusive authority to consider and resolve the dispute.”  (Id., Exh. B.)  Regardless, the arguments have no merit.  The Act does not apply because Plaintiff’s claims are predicated upon allegations before March 3, 2022.  (Complaint, ¶ 32.)  The arbitration agreement is not unconscionable. 

Plaintiff argues that the other Culichitown corporate entities are not signatories to the agreement.  However, Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that all such entities were her employers.  Therefore, they are covered by the arbitration agreement.  The Court need not determine whether Dependable Personnel, Inc. and Daniel Resendez are subject to the arbitration agreement because they have not appeared in this case, and they did not seek to compel arbitration in the motion. 

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.         The Court grants Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and orders that Plaintiff’s claims against the three Culichitown corporate entities shall be resolved by binding arbitration.  This case is stayed only with respect to those Defendants.

2.         The Court orders Plaintiff to seek entry of default against Defendants Dependable Personnel, Inc. and Daniel Resendez forthwith.  The Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal for failure to seek entry of default is advanced from July 16, 2024, to April 24, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.  

3.         The Court advances and vacates the post-mediation status conference, the final status conference, and the trial dates.   

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