Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 23STCV19023, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling

The Complaint alleges (1) failure to provide meals breaks; (2) failure to provide rest breaks; (3) failure to pay wages; (4) failure to pay overtime; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”); (7) pregnancy discrimination in violation of in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (8) sex/gender discrimination in violation of FEHA; (9) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA; (10) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA; (11) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (12) wrongful termination in violation of public policy and FEHA; (13) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); (14) violation of California’s Pregnancy Disability Leave law; (15) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (16) battery; (17) assault; (18) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (19) hostile work environment in violation of FEHA; (20) whistleblower retaliation in violation of the Labor Code, and (21) negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”).

On January 3, 2024, The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants Inc. and The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated filed a motion to compel arbitration. On January 4, 2024, Michelle Javier filed a Notice of Joinder.

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.)

There is a preliminary dispute about whether the signature on the Arbitration Agreement is in fact Plaintiff’s signature. Plaintiff contends that she never signed the agreement and does not recognize it. Specifically, Plaintiff declares, “I do not recognize the arbitration agreement presented by Defendants . . . I have never signed the arbitration agreement presented by Defendants. The signature presented on page 6 of Exhibit ‘1’ is not my signature and does not match any of the signatures I executed on the documents in my personnel file . . . I have never used the signature in Defendants’ arbitration agreement as my signature on any documents.” (Rosales Decl. ¶¶ 1-3.) She does not recall ever signing an arbitration agreement. (Rosales Decl. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff’s denial is supported by the absence of the signed Arbitration Agreement when her counsel requested her personnel file. (See Oganesian Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.) The documents provided by Defendants did not contain the Arbitration Agreement submitted with this motion; instead, there was an unsigned arbitration agreement written in Spanish. (Oganesian Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendants’ Vice President of Staff Relations explains the company’s practice and policy of presenting an Arbitration Agreement and placing it in the employee’s personnel file, but she does not establish personal knowledge that this policy and practice was followed for Plaintiff. (Lambert-Gaffney Decl. ¶ 5.)

The signatures on both the Arbitration Agreement and Plaintiff’s other personnel records are not very legible, defined, or distinctive. The Court has compared the signatures and agrees that there is a plausible factual question about whether the Arbitration Agreement’s signature is really Plaintiff’s signature. (See Motion, Ex. A; Opposition, Ex. 3.)

Defendants ask that if there are factual questions about Plaintiff’s signature, the Court should continue the hearing and allow evidence. (Cheesecake Reply at pp. 3-4; Javier Reply at pp. 1-2, 4.) The Court agrees that this is appropriate.

All discovery other than discovery related to the authenticity of Plaintiff’s signature is STAYED.

At the hearing, the Court invites the parties to suggest how much time they will need to conduct discovery and submit supplemental briefing, and whether the trial date should also be continued.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court