Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV00882, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00882    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On January 10, 2022, Plaintiff Julio Hernandez Mayren filed this action against Defendant Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions Inc., alleging claims related to the termination of his employment, arising under the Fair Housing and Employment Act (“FEHA”) and public policy.

On July 5, 2022, Defendant filed a petition to compel arbitration and stay the action, and on August 12, 2022, it filed a memorandum of points and authorities and supporting evidence.

When seeking to compel arbitration of a plaintiff’s claims, the defendant must allege the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.  (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.)  The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the agreement.  (Ibid.)  After the Court determines that an agreement to arbitrate exists, it then considers objections to its enforceability.  (Ibid.)  The Court must grant a petition to compel arbitration unless the defendant has waived the right to compel arbitration or if there are grounds to revoke the arbitration agreement.  (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)  When a nonsignatory seeks to enforce an arbitration agreement against a signatory, “the nonsignatory bears the burden to establish he or she is a party to the arbitration agreement/provision covering the dispute.”  (Jones v. Jacobson (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1, 15.)

Defendant contends that on June 7, 2019, Plaintiff signed an Employee Agreement to Arbitrate, through which the parties “agree[d] that all controversy, dispute or claim arising out of or relating to your employment or termination thereof with SIMPLIFIED LABOR STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. shall be subject to final and binding arbitration” pursuant to the FAA.  (Senbol Decl., Ex. 1 [“Arbitration Agreement”].)  Defendant has satisfied is burden of showing the existence of an applicable agreement to arbitrate.

Arbitration agreements for FEHA claims must (1) provide for neutral arbitrators, (2) provide for more than minimal discovery, (3) require a written award, (4) provide for all of the types of relief that would otherwise be available in court, and (5) not require employees to pay either unreasonable costs or any arbitrators’ fees or expenses as a condition of access to the arbitration forum.  (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 102 (Armendariz).)  These requirements may apply to non-FEHA employment claims.  (See Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 254 [applying the Armendariz factors in the context of claims under the Labor Code].)

The Arbitration Agreement requires arbitration by a single arbitrator selected in accordance with AAA’s rules.  (Arbitration Agreement ¶ 3.)  Each party shall have the right to conduct discovery using the procedures available under the Code of Civil Procedure.  (Id. at ¶ 4.)  The award will be in writing, and the arbitrator may award any remedy or relief available in court.  (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.)  The employer will pay the arbitrator’s fees and expenses.  (Id. at ¶ 2.)  Accordingly, the Arbitration Agreement satisfies Armendariz.

Plaintiff does not oppose the petition, but he requests that the Court retain jurisdiction to confirm, correct, or vacate the arbitration award.  (Non-Opposition at p. 1.)

Accordingly, the petition to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

The entire action is STAYED pending the arbitration.  (See 9 U.S.C. § 3.)  A Status Conference re: Arbitration is scheduled for 09/07/2023 at 8:30 AM in Department 48 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse (September 7, 2023).  Five court days before, the parties are to file a joint report stating the name of their retained arbitrator and the status of arbitration.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

      Dated this 7th day of September 2022