Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV05942, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05942    Hearing Date: September 13, 2023    Dept: 39

Jill Eknoian-Lopez v. Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc., et al.

Case No. 23STCV05942

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Plaintiff Jill Eknoian-Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed this retaliation/constructive discharge case against Defendants, who now 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.)

Defendants fail to satisfy their burden of establishing that Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement.  Defendants do not provide a copy of a signed arbitration agreement.  Instead, Defendants rely on the declaration of Jeannine Scott, which states:

“Due to flooding . . . many paper files, including employee records and personnel files, had to be boxed up and removed from the facility.  However, the files were not boxed up in any particular order nor were they catalogued, given the urgency with which they needed to be removed from the premises.” 

(Declaration of Jeannine Scott, ¶ 7.)  Simply, Defendants lost the purported arbitration agreement.  That alone is a basis to deny the motion, since Defendants—not Plaintiff—are responsible for the failure to provide a signed copy of the arbitration agreement.

            However, the Court has serious doubts whether Plaintiff ever signed the arbitration agreement.  Plaintiff explains that she never signed the agreement: 

“In or around 2016, I was instructed to circulate a new employee handbook, and an arbitration agreement to all current union and non-union employees.  The arbitration agreement itself required a signature to be enforceable. . . .  When I began circulating the arbitration agreement to Defendants [sic] employees, many of them complained and refused to sign the agreement.  When employees refused to sign the agreement, I reached out to management to see if signing the agreement was a requirement and a condition of employment.  Management never replied to me and instead decided to discontinue my assignment to obtain arbitration agreements.  Though I was able to obtain some signed arbitration agreements prior to management deciding to end the process, I did not sign the arbitration agreement.  I was never informed by either oral or written means that agreeing to arbitration was a requirement to retain my employment. 

(Declaration of Jill Eknoian-Lopez, ¶¶ 3-7.)  In addition, the declaration of Jeannine Scott states that other arbitration agreements were located.  (Declaration of Jeannine Scott, ¶¶ 8-9.)  These facts suggest that Plaintiff did not, in fact, sign the arbitration agreement.  Defendants rely on the fact that Plaintiff’s name appears on a list, but Ms. Scott has no foundation to testify the list represents those who actually signed the arbitration agreement.  (Id., ¶ 8.)  Ms. Scott’s declaration makes clear that she has no personal knowledge whether Plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement or whether the list represents those who signed the agreement.    

In the alternative, Defendants’ counsel argues that Plaintiff implicitly agreed to arbitrate this matter by continuing her employment.  However, the arbitration agreement in this case required a signature to become effective.  (Declaration of Anahi Cruz, Exh. #1; see also Declaration of Jill Eknoian-Lopez, ¶ 4.)  This distinguishes the instant case from Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 816.

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is denied.

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