Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV26323, Date: 2025-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV26323    Hearing Date: April 16, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     April 16, 2025                        TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Shai’la Stiggers v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV26323           

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Equinox Holdings, Inc. and Gregory Cohen

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Shai’la Stiggers

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an employment discrimination action that was filed on October 9, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated based on her race.

Defendants move to compel arbitration of this dispute.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendants move to compel arbitration of this dispute.

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.) An electronic record or signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. (Civ. Code § 1633.9(a).) The act of the person may be shown in any manner. (Id.) As described by the Court of Appeal, “the burden of authenticating an electronic signature is not great.” (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 844.)

            Defendants endeavor to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement through the Declaration of Sean O’Rourke, who is presently Equinox’s “Senior Manager for Employee Product,” and previously served as a Project Manager and as Manager for Identity Systems.” (Declaration of Sean O’Rourke ISO Mot. ¶ 2.) Based on these roles, Mr. O’Rourke declares that he is intimately familiar with Equinox’s intranet, databases, and report-generation systems. (Id.) Mr. O’Rourke declares, based on this knowledge, that Equinox’s records show that all employees, including Plaintiff, received an email on November 8, 2023, informing them of Defendant’s ADR Agreement and updated Employee Handbook. (Id. ¶ 6; Exh. 1.) All employees, including Plaintiff, received a reminder email on November 24. (Id. ¶ 7; Exh. 2.) Equinox’s records show that both emails reached Plaintiff’s inbox, and no bounce-back is on record. (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.) Both emails contain notices that acceptance of the terms of the ADR agreement and Employee Handbook is a condition of continued employment, and that any employee who continues to work for Equinox after 30 days from the notice will be construed as accepting the terms. (Id. Exhs. 1-2.) Further, Mr. O’Rourke states that Defendant’s internal system, EQX Connect, prompted all employees to read and acknowledge receipt of the ADR agreement and Employee Handbook. (Id. ¶ 10.)

            Defendants’ showing is not sufficient. Although Mr. O’Rourke is competent to speak to the contents of Equinox’s business records, nothing in his declaration establishes that Plaintiff actually read any of the notifications he describes, such that Plaintiff could be deemed to have actual or constructive notice of the ADR agreement. Defendants do not offer any evidence tending to prove that Plaintiff accessed the EQX Connect system after the notifications were posted. Nor do Defendants offer a read-receipt or any other proof that Plaintiff ever opened the November emails. On this meager showing, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff had any notice of the existence of an arbitration agreement, let alone that she accepted the terms of that agreement.

            Defendants are therefore not entitled to compel arbitration of this dispute.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  April 16, 2025                                    ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.