Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV05270, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05270    Hearing Date: October 25, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     October 25, 2023                   TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Arianna Carey v. Allcare Medical Management, Inc. d/b/a FPA Women’s Health

CASE NO.:                 23STCV05270           

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Allcare Medical Management, Inc. d/b//a FPA Women’s Health

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 10/23/23

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an employment discrimination action that was filed on March 9, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant subjected her to extensive discrimination and harassment on the basis of her race and medical condition.based ones to compel this matter to binding arbitration.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

This action is hereby stayed pending resolution of the arbitration.

The Court sets a hearing for a Status Conference Re: Arbitration for Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 8:30 AM.

DISCUSSION:

            Defendant moves to compel this matter to binding arbitration and stay these proceedings pending resolution of the arbitration.

//

Existence of an Arbitration Agreement

Under California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. (Blake v. Ecker (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 728, 741 (overruled on other grounds by Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094).) A party petitioning to compel arbitration has the burden of establishing the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate, and the party opposing the petition has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to its defense. (Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 356-57.)

As to the burden of production, rather than persuasion, courts have articulated a three-step burden shifting process:

First, the moving party bears the burden of producing “prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy.” [citation] The moving party “can meet its initial burden by attaching to the [motion or] petition a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the [opposing party’s] signature.” [citation] Alternatively, the moving party can meet its burden by setting forth the agreement’s provisions in the motion. [citations] For this step, “it is not necessary to follow the normal procedures of document authentication.” [citation] 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 burden of persuasion.

If the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden and the opposing party disputes the agreement, then in the second step, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the agreement. [citation] The opposing party can do this in several ways. For example, the opposing party may testify under oath or declare under penalty of perjury that the party never saw or does not remember seeing the agreement, or that the party never signed or does not remember signing the agreement. [citations]

If the opposing party meets its burden of producing evidence, then in the third step, the moving party must establish with admissible evidence a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. The burden of proving the agreement by a preponderance of the evidence remains with the moving party. [citation].

(Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165-66.)

Defendant has provided a document, in English, titled, in block capitals, “Acknowledgement of Policies, Rules and Agreement for At-Will Employment and Arbitration” signed by Plaintiff dated July 6, 2022. (Declaration of Alexis Barrientos ISO Mot. Exh. A.) This document states, in block capitals, above the signature line:

I KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO SUBMIT AND SETTLE ANY DISPUTE, CONTROVERSY OR CLAIM ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO MY EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMPANY TO ARBITRATION AS DESCRIBED IN THE “ARBITRATION AGREEMENT” SECTION OF THIS HANDBOOK. I AGREE THAT THE ARBITRATION OF SUCH ISSUES, INCLUDING THE DETERMINATION OF ANY AMOUNT OF DAMAGES SUFFERED, SHALL BE FINAL AND BINDING UPON ALL PARTIES TO THE ARBITRATION TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. I REALIZE BY AGREEING TO ARBITRATION, I WILL HAVE WAIVED MY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY. THIS POLICY CANNOT CHANGE EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN MYSELF AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY.

(Id.) Defendant has also provided the Arbitration Agreement referenced in the Acknowledgement, which states:

This binding arbitration shall be conducted by a retired judge or such other neutral third- party as jointly selected by the parties, and the procedure governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. Sections 1-16). All parties shall have all rights of discovery and remedies as they would in a California civil action. The binding arbitration award of all issues, including damages (if applicable) and attorneys’ fees, shall be final and binding upon all the parties, to the extent permitted by law. Judgment upon the binding arbitration award may be entered by any court having jurisdiction. The parties shall each initially bear their own costs and attorney’s fees. The Employer shall pay for the arbitrator’s fees and any out-of-pocket costs required for the administration of the arbitration. The arbitrator shall issue a written decision explaining the reasons for the decision. The arbitrator shall follow the applicable law(s) in determining whether to award attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party.

(Id. Exh. B.) As Plaintiff has not opposed this motion, Defendant has therefore demonstrated that Plaintiff signed a binding arbitration agreement.

Applicability of the FAA

            The Agreement expressly states that arbitration shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. (Barrientos Decl. Exh. B.) Plaintiff, having not responded to this motion, does not dispute that the Federal Arbitration Act governs this agreement.

//

Scope of the Arbitration Agreement

             “The scope of arbitration is a matter of agreement between the parties.” (See, e.g., Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh, Inc. v. 100 Oak Street (1983) 35 Cal.3d 312, 323.) “A party can be compelled to arbitrate only those issues it has agreed to arbitrate.” (Perez v. U-Haul Co. of California (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 408, 419.)

Defendant contends that, as an employment discrimination action, this case, on its face, arises out of Plaintiff’s employment. As Plaintiff has not responded to the motion, Plaintiff does not dispute this contention. The Court therefore finds that this action is within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement.

Conclusion

            As Defendant has demonstrated the existence of a binding arbitration agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act whose scope encompasses the claims asserted in this action, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to compel this matter to binding arbitration.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

This action is hereby stayed pending resolution of the arbitration.

The Court sets a hearing for a Status Conference Re: Arbitration for Thursday, April 25, 2024, at 8:30 AM.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2023                                 ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.