Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV06622, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06622    Hearing Date: August 17, 2023    Dept: 39

Marina Vorobyov v. Prime Healthcare Services – Prime LLC, et al.

Case No. 23STCV06622

Motion to Compel Arbitration

            Plaintiff Marina Vorobyov (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment case against Defendant Prime Healthcare Services – St. Francis, LLC DBA St. Francis Medical Center, erroneously served as Prime Healthcare Services – Prime, LLC (“Defendant”).  Defendant moves to compel arbitration.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, which is granted. 

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.)

The moving party first must recite verbatim or provide a copy of the alleged arbitration agreement.  (See Iyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 747, 755.)  The moving party can satisfy this burden by attaching a copy of the arbitration agreement purportedly bearing the opposing party’s signature, which Defendant has done in this case.  (Ibid.)  Defendant attaches a copy of the arbitration agreement to a declaration in support of the motion.  (Declaration of Barbara DeGiuseppe, Exh. A.)  Plaintiff does not challenge the authenticity of this document.     

The agreement states that the parties will arbitrate “any and all disputes, claims, or controversies, past, present, or future, between [Plaintiff] and [Defendant] arising out of [Plaintiff’s] application and selection for employment, the employment relationship, and/or termination of employment . . . .”    (Id., Exh. A, p. 1.)  There is no dispute that this action falls within the scope of this provision.

Plaintiff argues that the arbitration agreement was obtained by fraud and is therefore void.  Plaintiff also argues that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable.  The arbitration agreement states: “The arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the validity, scope, applicability, enforceability, or waiver of this [arbitration] Agreement including, but not limited to any claim that all or any part of this Agreement is void or voidable.”  (Id., Exh. A, § 4.)  This delegation clause is clear and unmistakable.  Therefore, it is enforceable unless the clause itself is unconscionable.  (See Malone v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1560.)  It is Plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate that this delegation clause is unconscionable, and Plaintiff’s counsel advances no argument or evidence on this issue.  In fact, this delegation clause is not unconscionable because it falls within the reasonable expectations of the parties, given its scope, and it is bilateral, applying to both sides equally.  (See id., p. 1564.)   

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is granted.

            2.         The Court sets an Order to Show Cause why the Court should not order arbitration, stay, or dismissal of the remaining defendants.  The Court shall hold the OSC hearing on September 12, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.  The Court orders Plaintiff’s counsel to file a response on or before September 5, 2023, informing the Court how Plaintiff intends to proceed with respect to these defendants. 

            3.         The Court issues an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed following arbitration.  The parties shall file a joint status report concerning the status of arbitration on or before February 20, 2024.  The hearing shall be March 4, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.  The Court provides notice: If Plaintiff’s counsel does not appear at the hearing, either remotely or in-person, absent good cause, the Court will assume the case has been resolved by way of arbitration or settlement and will dismiss this case with prejudice at the hearing.

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